Volume 668 Week 59 - Thursday 11 November 2010 
Volume 668 Week 59 - Thursday 11 November 2010 
[Volume:668;Page:15235] 
Thursday 11 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next Tuesday the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) will receive its first reading and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will receive its third reading. The House will take urgency from Tuesday evening onwards to consider a range of bills that have been recently notified to all parties. The Government intends to take questions each day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I convey our thanks to the Leader of the House for the suggested bills for next week. I was going to clarify with him the issue of question time but the Deputy Leader of the House has done that. I am sure that will be of great interest to the 36 first-year Maori nursing students from Whitireia Community Polytechnic who are visiting Parliament today. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure you are right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether the Speaker should be involved in that. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure the member is right—my apologies Mr Speaker. 
Questions to Ministers 
Police—Numbers 
1. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by all statements she has made in relation to increasing the number of police; if so how does she reconcile her statements with police projections that eight out of 12 police districts will have fewer constabulary employees by the end of 2011 than they had at the end of June 2009? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I stand by all the statements I have made. This Government is committed to putting 600 extra police officers on the front line throughout New Zealand. We have already reached our goal of putting an extra 300 officers into Counties-Manukau. In relation to the figures raised by the member in June 2009 11 of our 12 police districts exceeded their staff target levels. Across the country there were 83 more officers than were funded by the previous Budget. The reason for that is that the number of police officers leaving the force has dropped to its lowest level since World War II. The numbers are now moving to the funded level and we are on target to put 600 extra police on the front line by the end of next year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a data table prepared by the New Zealand Police on 16 June 2010 showing that eight out of the 12 police districts will have fewer constabulary staff by the end of 2011 than they had at the end of June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hilary Calvert 
: How does she expect to ever have sufficient police when the local police force struggled to cope with illegal occupations in Taipa Bay and Papa Aroha and when Ministers are heightening Maori expectations about the foreshore and seabed and then in the case of Minister Finlayson telling the locals that occupations are a criminal matter and that they should call the police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The matter of the Taipa Bay occupation I understand was dealt with very well by the police yesterday. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she stand by her statement of 29 October 2010 that “Nothing deters criminals like plenty of Police on the beat.”; if so does she believe that the fact that the Wellington Police District will have 46 fewer police by the end of next year compared with June 2009 will actually make life easier for criminals and less so for law-abiding Wellingtonians? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes to the first part of the question; and I can tell that member that when his Government left office in November 2008 the figure in Wellington was 789 police officers. That will be exceeded by the end of next year in accordance with our promise. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Does the Minister consider it to be acceptable that police resources and numbers are stretched by Ministers declaring that what are clearly political problems such as the Taipa Bay occupation are merely policing issues? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The police make their own decisions on matters like Taipa Bay and certainly I—and Ministers that I am aware of—have made no decisions about that. The police considered this to be a matter that they should be involved with and I think that they have dealt with it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she stand by her statement of 20 May 2010 that “Our top priority has been to increase the number of officers on the beat in our neighbourhoods”; if so what does she believe that Aucklanders who will have 32 fewer police at the end of next year than they had at the end of June 2009 in the Auckland police district will think about the way that she has prioritised their needs? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I believe Aucklanders will be very pleased that when this Government came to office they had 703 officers and that at the end of next year they will have 712 officers. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she stand by her statement of 3 July 2009 that “Increasing the numbers of police will not only make police more visible and better able to respond to crime but will be an opportunity” to model better ways of policing; if so how does she expect the police in the Southern Police District which will have 22 fewer police at the end of 2011 than there were in June 2009 to be able to demonstrate better policing methods to people living in that district? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure that the people of the southern region will be thrilled to know that under this Government their police will in fact increase from 558 officers to 565 officers. Actually that is an increase. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she stand by her statement of 12 December 2008 that “New Zealand police are being stretched too thin”; if so how much thinner is she willing to see the Waikato Police District be stretched considering that papers prepared by her own department show that it will have 18 fewer police at the end of 2011 than there were in June 2009? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am fully aware that Waikato is due under the commissioner’s decision to get further police resources. I note that when this Government came into office Waikato had 573 officers. At the end of next year it will have 598 officers. Even that member should be able to work out that that is an increase. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does she reconcile her statements about increasing resources for the police with the reality reported in the September Police Association newsletter that for example in the words of Sergeant Kevin Stewart the police are “attending fewer jobs due to workload and a lack of staff” and that in the words of several other police shift supervisors the police see “a lack of numbers on the beat as compromising safety for frontline officers.”—how does she respond to those front-line officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I would respond in this way. The previous Government took 4 years to trial the Taser. This Government came into office and got 720 Tasers out there on the front line keeping our staff safe. I can also say this Government is putting in 600 extra police and with anyone’s maths that is an increase. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a data set prepared by the New Zealand Police which shows that the third tranche of additional police promised and funded by the previous Labour Government came into force by the end of the 2008-09 financial year—the date that we are comparing against. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table page 5 of a paper prepared by the office of the Auditor-General on 16 June 2010 which quotes: “Vote Police was reduced by $20 million in 2009/10 as a result of line by line review of expenditure”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought to table a document. 
Craig Foss 
: It is a clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member in the interest of progress. 
Craig Foss 
: Is that a select committee document as part of the financial reviews? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We need to be little careful here. If that was advice to a select committee that has not reported yet then that would be confidential to the committee. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This advice was noted in the transcript in public session and it is on the record. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is on the record in public—[ 
Interruption 
] An interesting point has been raised so I will hear Craig Foss. 
Craig Foss 
: Regardless of the fact that it was mentioned or not in public session as I understand it if that document is confidential to the committee then it is a committee document. It is outside the Standing Orders to refer to it in public anyway and it seems that the member intends to breach the Standing Orders by breaching the confidence of the committee. Until a report comes to the House about that annual report then that is a committee document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well a very interesting issue has arisen. I accept that absolutely. I am a little loath to rule on it without checking further so probably what I am best advised to do is to take the member’s word and leave it to the wisdom of the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Can I assist you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I will do I say to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is to put the leave and leave it— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I can assist you seriously. This is not a financial review. This is advice regarding the estimates which was in public session. The advice was in public session and the quote was noted in public session. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the estimates have indeed been reported back to the House then that seems to resolve that issue. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Economy Rebalancing—Measures 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is the Government taking to tilt the economy towards exports and savings and away from borrowing and consumption? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government is taking several important steps. Firstly we have introduced significant tax reforms that reward work savings and investment and that discourage borrowing consumption and property speculation. Secondly we are getting the Government’s books in order so that the Government which is the least productive part of the economy reduces its call on resources from the rest of the economy and this will help in the long run to keep interest rates lower than they otherwise would be. Thirdly we are reviewing extensively the regulation that applies to the export sector. Fourthly we are pursuing free-trade agreements that will deliver significant benefits to New Zealand having recently signed agreements with Malaysia Hong Kong and ASEAN and we are in talks with India the Gulf States and the trans-Pacific partnership countries Korea and Russia. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What progress is being made in tilting the economy towards exports and savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are some welcome signs of progress although there are some headwinds. For example households are being careful with their money they are not spending up significantly and they are reducing debt. There are signs that the housing market is at the least moving sideways and people are not rushing back into property speculation. On the other hand the high exchange rate against the US dollar is offsetting some of the benefits of the very high commodity prices. I note that the Governor of the Reserve Bank said yesterday that households and businesses are keeping spending low as they reduce debt and when this is combined with improved export and commodity prices it is reducing New Zealand’s current account deficit and external indebtedness which are chronic problems that have built up over the last 10 years under the previous Government. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What challenges does New Zealand face as the economy rebalances towards exports and savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think there are a couple of challenges. One is obviously the high exchange rate against the US dollar although I might say that the exchange rate against the Australian dollar—and Australia is our biggest trading partner—is at its lowest in 15 years and this is considerably assisting our manufacturing exporters. I think the other big challenge is simply to get government in order. Government represents too big a call on the resources of the economy. Effectively waste in government is a tax on the export sector and because such a poor job was done of managing government in the last decade we have a big challenge to sort it out. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are some of the costs and risks of currency intervention? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There has been some speculation about currency intervention. This Government is continuing the policy of the last Government—that is it supports the Reserve Bank having authority to intervene. The Reserve Bank has publicly set out the criteria that it thinks should apply before it intervenes. However we share the view of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that there is little evidence that currency intervention works other than in the short term. For instance large-scale intervention by the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank in the last few months have had only a transitory effect. Most Governments and central banks share our caution about the considerable risks to taxpayers from extensive currency speculation. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen criticism of his rebalancing of the economy by borrowing for tax cuts and increasing Government debt and why does he deny that he is doing that given Fran O’Sullivan’s critique which asks: “is there any point borrowing more to fund tax cuts if taxpayers simply use the extra to retire personal debt?” 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have seen almost no criticism of the Government’s plan to rebalance the economy and that is because almost all New Zealanders understand the need for it. They are doing exactly the same things themselves. We are being careful with spending; they are being careful with their spending. They are paying off debt; we are trying to constrain the rise in debt. They are focusing on being able to earn more and that is exactly what New Zealand as a nation needs to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister not promote the fact that his rebalancing of the economy through income tax gives 42 percent of those cuts to the top 10 percent of earners in reality meaning that low and middle income earners pay a higher proportion of total taxes in New Zealand while high-income earners pay a lower proportion of total taxation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not promoting that because it is not correct. In fact the Government cut tax rates across the board and produced extensive analysis after the Budget to show that the tax cuts were fair in the sense that all income groups got about the same change in their net after-tax income. No one has disagreed with the fundamental push of the tax changes which are to discourage consumption and excessive debt and housing speculation and encourage exports savings and investment. 
Roading State Highway 1—Information Release and Consultation Period 
3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: When will the New Zealand Transport Agency announce a new date for releasing information about the new State Highway 1 through Kapiti and how long will the consultation period run for? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am advised that updated consultation materials for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway will be considered by a New Zealand Transport Agency board committee at its regular scheduled meeting on 18 November. Should that consultation material be approved I understand that an announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency after that date advising the timetable for consultation including the period that consultation will be open. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but I missed the last sentence of the Minister’s answer about the length of the consultation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister to assist us but the member might note that it was his own front-bench colleagues who were making the noise that prevented him from hearing it. Could the Minister please assist us with that. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Absolutely on the basis that the Opposition will actually listen. The announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency—actually I will repeat the full sentence. Should that consultation material be approved I understand that an announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency after that date advising the timetable for consultation including the period that consultation will be open. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When he took the unusual step of calling both the chair and the chief executive of the agency on a Saturday to discuss delaying a publicly notified consultation due to start the following week did any aspect of the conversation touch on when that consultation could start? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject at the outset the assertion of that supplementary question that it was an unusual step for me to be working on a Saturday and talking to people involved in my portfolio which is something that I do all the time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that is a flippant answer to my question. I was not being insulting by saying that it was unusual; I would not have thought that contact on a matter like this would take place on a non-business day. There was nothing loaded in the word “unusual” and if that is what caused the Minister offence then I will take that word out so that he can get on with the substance of my question. That was not a political attack on him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has more supplementary questions. The way he shaped the question it started out: “When the Minister spoke to some people on Saturday …”. I feel that I cannot ask the Minister to answer any differently because that is not really starting the question. If the member had structured the question the other way round he might have got further. He has more supplementary questions and I think he should use them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the further refinements that the New Zealand Transport Agency is working on are not in the Mana electorate as he asserted yesterday during question time why then will he not ask the agency to release the part of the route that is in Mana so that the voters in that area know what to expect before they go to the polls on 20 November? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am confused. On the one hand the member seems to criticise me for trying to have an involvement in New Zealand Transport Agency decisions and on the other hand he is asking me to tell it what to do next. He really needs to decide what he expects of the Minister with regard to the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely the Minister is responsible for giving an answer to the House not for questioning what my motives are in asking the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask whether the Minister is quite finished. I think the questioner on this occasion has a legitimate grievance. Although there are issues over what the Minister can do with regard to the Transport Agency the question was not unreasonable. I think it might be appropriate to let the member repeat his question just to make sure that it has been treated reasonably fairly. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the further refinements that the New Zealand Transport Agency is working on are not in the Mana electorate as he asserted yesterday during question time then why if he has had nothing to do with the original decision will he not ask the agency to release the part of the route that is in the Mana electorate so that those voters know what to expect before they go to the polls on 20 November? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I still have trouble with the question. On the one hand the member is insinuating that I am suggesting that there would be some involvement in the political cycle but now he is suggesting that I get involved because of the political cycle and ask the New Zealand Transport Agency to do something that it is not yet prepared to do. I have a problem with that. I think the agency should get the consultation material together as quickly as possible and provide as much certainty to people as it can but it should not be cognisant of the political cycle and the Mana by-election. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Further to the Minister’s reply that the committee will meet on 18 November and then release information after that for consultation does he think it is fair that if the standard 6-week consultation period is chosen that will mean it runs through the Christmas and new year period and is it fair that people will have to try to make a submission on such an important matter during the Christmas and new year holiday period? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sure that is a fair point for the member to make and I am sure the board committee will take into account the timetabling of the consultation relative to the Christmas period. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the New Zealand Transport Agency announced on 2 November that the consultation it had spent $22000 on inviting people to for 7 November was suspended to “further refine … proposals” was it only the location of the motorway by the urupa that required refinement or was it other locations along the road as well? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: My clear understanding is that the focus of the change was on insufficient detail on a section of the road towards the northern end of the alignment which if consulted on as it stood would leave too much uncertainty for local residents. 
Economy Sustainable—Cleantech and Greentech Businesses 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that a more sustainable economy is preferable to a less sustainable economy; if so what measures has he taken to specifically promote cleantech and greentech businesses in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I said yesterday it is important that the economic recovery and new jobs and growth are all sustainable and not built on unsustainable Government spending and housing speculation which were the hallmarks of the last decade. It is also important that we balance our economic opportunities with our environmental objectives and in that context the Government has put in place several measures to promote clean-technology businesses. The most significant is the amended emissions trading scheme which puts the right incentives in place for all households and businesses that are using carbon-based energy to use clean technology. The Government has also put in place the waste levy which I understand the member’s party lobbied for when it was in support of the previous Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When he announced in his Budget $321 million worth of expenditure in research and development why did he not target even a fraction of that spend on greentech and cleantech industries such as renewable energies sustainable agriculture greentech manufacturing and energy efficiency? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the member is right that the Government process has the opportunity to do that. The matter of priorities is determined largely by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and it is my general understanding that significant projects across the science community are focused on those things. But now that the member raises the issue I will have a chat to my colleague the Minister of Research Science and Technology just to get more detailed information. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Interpreting the Minister’s response to the primary question that he believes a more or less sustainable economy is preferable why did he cut funding to the Organic Advisory Programme and the Sustainable Business Network which are two organisations that are leading in their own fields the greentech cleantech economic shift? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We take a general approach rather than highly specific interventions and funding arrangements that can easily be the subject of political fashion. We have put in place the amended emissions trading system which has a blanket impact across the whole economy and in my experience it is leading to everybody from aluminium smelters to tomato growers trying to work out how to run more efficient production systems. We have gone for an impact across the whole economy rather than highly selective ones. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he then accept that by introducing through blanket impact a full carbon price on electricity we will encourage the production of low-carbon electricity such as wind geothermal and potentially tidal; if so will he commit to ensuring that the electricity sector pays a full price on carbon with protection for low-income households? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has set out a path for the carbon price and we believe it is a sensible one particularly given the significant recession the economy has had. I think the member raises a reasonable issue that one of the constraints on moving to a full carbon price would be the impact on low-income households. I might say that there are signs of success. The mix of energy has moved significantly in favour of new renewable energy sources whereas under the previous Government for all its good intent the non-renewable proportion of energy rose quite dramatically. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree with business leaders such as Rob Fenwick Rob Fyfe Jeremy Moon Sir George Fistonich Sir Stephen Tindall Phillip Mills and Geoff Ross who see clean technology as an economic opportunity for New Zealand rather than seeing it as a cost? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the answer to that is probably yes. I have been involved in discussion with a number of those individuals as I think a number of other Ministers have. I think we need to be a bit careful not to “sloganise” this next-generation environmental fashion. The fact is that the emissions trading system which I know the member supports will have a pretty significant impact on the pressure for all businesses and households to work out more efficient ways of using non-renewable energy and swing more to cheaper renewable energy sources. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: With regard to the list of business leaders I gave earlier does he agree that clean technology is an opportunity to achieve the kind of knowledge-led economy about which there has been enormous talk over many years while at the same time improving our environment and enhancing our clean green image and does he agree that that requires more focused attention than a broad price signal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think I would probably agree with the member’s first statement. In respect of his second statement I would not say that we need more focus than a broad price signal. I think there is a broad price signal out there which we all agree is the right kind of signal although we probably disagree on how strong that signal should be at the moment. But these kinds of discussions would be in addition to that broad price signal not a replacement for it. We are interested in hearing about any entrepreneurial or innovative ideas people have particularly about the use of public resources to achieve those ends. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that the economy to some extent has been based on the premise of simply mining more farming more and consuming more that we need to make the transition to a greentech high-tech solution both for economic and environmental reasons and that although the beginnings of a price signal around the emissions trading scheme is a start it will require more effort from the Government to make that transition? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the member’s first statement. I do not agree with the analysis that New Zealand’s economic growth has all been based on the unsustainable exploitation of resources. Our fundamental resource is soil and its productive capacity and the New Zealand farming industry has shown an extraordinary capacity to sustain the productive capacity of our soils our grasses and our forests over 150 years. So I think we already know a lot about sustainable production systems but of course technology can help us add to its productive capacity. 
Minerals Nationalised—Mining on Maori-owned Land 
5. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Did he give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group that he would revisit Government policy on nationalised minerals if Maori considered granting consent to mining on Maori-owned land? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: No. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why has the Minister engaged with the Iwi Leadership Group on mining interests on Maori land but not consulted in good faith with iwi leaders on petroleum exploration permits like those for Raukumara and Reinga or is consultation something he engages in only when iwi have something he wants? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister hear the whole question? I must confess I did not hear the start of the question. But if the Minister heard it— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Now that the Speaker has interrupted the flow I have forgotten the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I asked the member because I missed the start of the question because of interjections on my left. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why has the Minister engaged with the Iwi Leadership Group on mining interests on Maori land but not consulted in good faith with iwi leaders on petroleum exploration permits like those for Raukumara and Reinga or is consultation something he engages in only when iwi have something he wants? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Iwi leaders in our experience have the same interests around mining as every other New Zealander. Some of them would like to proceed with mining because they are landowners or they want new jobs. Others are opposed to it because they believe it has a negative environmental impact. In respect of the second statement the Minister I understand is heading to the East Coast to consult about the permits the member referred to. Of course he will consult with them. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that response did the Minister give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group to amend the existing Ministry of Economic Development consultation process with Maori on mining applications in order to prevent a repeat of the Raukumara and Reinga basins consultation debacle? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer specifically about whether he has made an undertaking. But certainly it is the Government’s intent to follow the same kind of process with iwi as with any other New Zealanders—that is to be transparent about where the Government is headed and to make sure their views are heard and taken into account. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Did the Minister give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group that he would amend Government policy or the Crown Minerals Act to make certain the nature and the extent of Maori interests in new non-nationalised mineral resources? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again I cannot answer specifically about what the Minister may have said but the Government does have an interest in ensuring that for all participants in the resources stake there is certainty about rights obligations and processes. Iwi have as much interest in that certainty as every other New Zealander. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has he seen the comments on mining from Mark Solomon chair of both Ngai Tahu and the Iwi Leadership Group that it is about getting all the best information one can and acting responsibly as kaitiaki for protecting the land and what processes has he established to ensure iwi will be informed about Government policy on Crown minerals moving into the future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have seen those comments from Mr Solomon. I think he is probably still a wee bit focused on having no mining whatsoever whereas I think there are possibilities in the Ngai Tahu rohe that would be quite positive including providing jobs for members of Ngai Tahu. The Government is talking with iwi leadership about the best process to ensure iwi are well informed about Government policy on minerals and resources and can take iwi views into account. I do not think this will be difficult because it is a process that we put in place for a whole range of issues that we discuss with iwi from week to week in the same way as we do with every other New Zealander. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Iwi Leadership Group was interested in mining opportunities only if it were not at the expense of the environment or contrary to the aspirations of its tribal members? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I certainly would not want to represent iwi leaders’ views; that is fundamentally their role. But in my experience they are as owners and managers of significant land and natural resource in New Zealand well informed and well aware of the trade-offs between environmental protection and the creation of wealth and jobs—which after all is of as much interest to iwi in general as it is to the Government. 
Police—Public Satisfaction with Services 
6. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on the level of public satisfaction with the services provided by the New Zealand Police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the latest Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey shows a high level of public trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police. The ratings show the percentage of people who have full or quite a lot of trust and confidence in the police has increased over the last 2 years from 69 percent to 75 percent. In addition the rating of overall satisfaction with service delivery remains high; 79 percent of people who had contact with the police were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the service they received. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What does the survey indicate about people’s perception of safety in their communities? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: People’s perception of safety in their neighbourhood city or town centre has improved since 2008. The rating for safety in the neighbourhood after dark has increased from 65 percent to 70 percent. There has also been an increase in the proportion of people feeling safe or very safe in their city or town centre after dark from 42 percent to 48 percent. The results of the survey reflect the ongoing effort and commitment of police staff around the country to provide the best possible service to their communities. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why should not the public of New Zealand believe Sergeant Sean Judd of Westport a front-line officer who said publicly in September of this year: “We just don’t have the numbers and unfortunately the public have noticed and are not happy. They want to know why we are not out on the beat and the fact is we would like nothing more but because we are so under resourced it is just not happening.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is very difficult when the member comes to the House and quotes a serving officer and names him like that. Quite frankly that sergeant can know that this Government will put 600 extra police on the front line by the end of next year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the September edition—No. 8 Volume 43—of  
Police News 
 from which that quote came. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. [ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being dealt with—the member’s own point of order. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Education National Standards—Dismissal of Trustee Boards 
7. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Independent—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her assurance to the House on 9 November 2010 that it was never her intention to dismiss boards of trustees of primary and intermediate schools who refuse to implement her national standards policy? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes. A formal process is in place to ensure that schools have the support they need to implement national standards and that is before any consideration is given to possible further steps. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: If it was never her intention to dismiss non-complying boards as she told my very good friend and former colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on Tuesday— 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Hon Chris Carter 
: One of my 17 friends—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sometimes the Speaker has to admit that the Speaker has lost it and I have sure lost that one. I think members have had their fun. Please treat the questioner with respect. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. It reminds me of when I was a teacher during the last period on Fridays. If it was never her intention to dismiss non-complying boards as she told my good friend and former colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on Tuesday why did she respond to a reporter’s question in February of this year by saying that dismissing boards who do not comply was an option? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister’s comments in February reflected what the law actually provided for and that law of course was passed under a former Labour Government. As the Minister has made clear there is an escalation process which has a number of decision points and opportunities for assisting boards of trustees to implement national standards. This process would contrast with the Labour Party escalation process when it has a problem which is basically to go from hero to zero. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could help me. It seems to me that the answer—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to National Party members on this occasion that it is a point of order. Although they may not be impressed they should treat the House with respect. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It seems to me that my primary question was quite simple. I asked whether dismissal of non-complying boards was an option. I was told initially that it was not. I have quite good eyesight and the chart the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. The Minister gave a perfectly clear answer to the question and the member cannot litigate it by way of point of order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does she agree with Liz Horgan principal of St Joseph’s School Otahuhu who wrote last week that the actions of more than 200 boards of trustees last week in opposition to the national standards policy demonstrated a growing number of boards who recognise that using guesswork and hopelessly crude methodologies are not a desirable way to run schools or assess pupils; or indeed with Professor John Hattie who said earlier this year that the Minister’s national standards were a hopelessly crude way of raising student achievement? Does she agree with those statements; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No the Minister does not agree with those statements. I am very disappointed that some boards have taken the action that the member refers to. I note that the  
New Zealand Herald  
today reports that up to one-third of those schools are actually getting on with implementing national standards. It is disappointing that these schools are participating in a union-driven agenda affecting children’s education. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the press conference where Mrs Tolley said that dismissal was an option. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a press statement? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No it is a transcript from her interview. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Liz Horgan Principal of St Joseph’s School Otahuhu outlining her concerns about national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this seeking leave to table another document? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to just list the documents he wishes to table and give the House— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I would be happy to do that. I thought that you wanted them individually. I seek leave to table a document from Mr John Hattie professor of education from Waikato University outlining his concerns about national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that it is a letter. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It is an outline from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on his assessment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we will not be seeking leave to table that document. 
Waste Electronic—Recycling 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How much electronic waste was collected last Saturday with the eDay initiative and what longer-term plan does the Government have for improving recycling of electronic waste? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Last Saturday eDay funded by the Government was very successful. It collected a record 900 tonnes or 77000 items of electronic waste at 53 drop-off points around the country. I particularly acknowledge the thousands of volunteers around New Zealand who assisted with this massive recycling effort. The Government wants to progress from eDay to a year-round culture of recycling electronic waste. We are investing in a programme next year to establish in partnership with community recycling facilities 20 permanent recycling points as well as recycling facilities in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What are the implications of the Government decision to phase out analogue television services in the switch to digital transmission and has thought been put into dealing with the large volume of old televisions that will be added to the waste stream as a consequence? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes this is an issue. Although people will be able to get a digital decoder for older televisions to work we expect a surge of about 500000 older TVs being added to the waste stream and they will contain about a thousand tonnes of lead. The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Development have been asked by Cabinet to work on solutions to this issue in parallel with the broader programme of improving New Zealand’s management of electronic waste. A key issue is the capital cost of the equipment to extract the lead from the glass. I have had discussions on this issue with Australian Ministers and we are exploring the possibility of a joint initiative to achieve this recycling at least cost. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How much has this Government committed to improving the management of electronic waste and how does this compare with the previous Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government has invested approximately $2.3 million in improving the management of e-waste in 2009 and 2010 as part of our strategy of focusing on those solid wastes that pose the greatest harm. The total amount spent in the previous 9 years was $247000 or about a tenth of what National has invested in just 2 years. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister update the House on the status of the 966 tonnes of e-waste collected on eDay last year which when he last advised the House was sitting on a wharf in Korea and which he could not give any undertakings would be recycled? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was a problem in both 2008 and in 2009 with some of the waste that was collected on eDay. Some of that remains and the Government is letting a contract for the recycling of about 200 tonnes—I do not have the exact figures but I would be happy to provide the exact tonnage to the member. Effectively the previous Government grossly underfunded eDay which meant there were not the funds to be able to professionally deal with the waste. I am pleased that this Government has shown some environmental responsibility and made sure that the job is being done properly. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When if ever will the Minister just get on and approve a product stewardship scheme for e-waste at point of purchase to reduce the 80000 tonnes of e-waste that is currently deposited every year in landfills by New Zealanders and why does he not just get on and do that so that every day can be eDay? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am quite open-minded about a stewardship scheme for electronic waste and it is one of the things that we need to explore. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member laughs but I alert her to the fact that after 9 years in Government Labour did absolutely nothing about electronic waste. We ran the most successful eDay ever and have a programme for providing 20 recycling depots around the country. The reality is that this Government has made more progress on e-waste in 2 years than Labour made in 9 years. 
Employment Relations Legislation—Minister’s Confidence in Changes 
9. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she have confidence in all of the changes to employment relations legislation and policy that she has introduced or proposed since becoming the Minister of Labour? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: Yes. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How can the Minister be confident that the changes to the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act will help to improve productivity when the Department of Labour told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its financial review hearing this morning that lots of the changes would be very hard to link directly to improving productivity? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite clear when we look at the bill that there are a large number of actions that will help improve the productivity of the New Zealand workforce in their collective interest. I am quite confident about that. 
Carol Beaumont 
: How can anyone have confidence in the Minister’s commitment to improving skills in the workplace given that there is not a single mention of the skills forum in the Department of Labour’s 2010 annual report that she has not held a single meeting of the skills forum this year despite indicating that there would be five and that the department confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the decision to hold no skills forum meetings has been entirely hers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite clear in the labour portfolio that this Government is focused on actions rather than endless meetings strategies action plans— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Task forces. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —task forces pilots and groups. This Government is focused on action and certainly the Hon Kate Wilkinson is an action woman. 
Darien Fenton 
: How can she be confident that her 90-day trial period scheme will improve productivity and skills given that we have heard of yet another example today where a skilled chef was fired under the scheme for using too much sauce and aioli? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Quite easily. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the supplementary question and the level of background noise is too high. 
Darien Fenton 
: Given that the Department of Labour confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this morning that she is proposing changes to the Minimum Wage Act can she guarantee that those changes will not disadvantage any minimum wage earner or result in any workers being entitled to even less pay than they currently earn? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure the member will become aware of that matter when it is appropriate to make the member aware. I can say that the Minister is focused on providing employees with more choice and is focused on how we can create more jobs in this economy for the future of New Zealand. 
Broadband Wireless—Roll-out to Regional New Zealand 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What action has the Government taken to help the roll-out of wireless broadband in regional New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Further applications were invited on 9 November for access to the Managed Spectrum Park in the 2.5 gigahertz band on a “first come first served” basis. This follows a previous application process in 2009. This spectrum allocation will improve broadband services to rural New Zealand which is a priority for the Government. An emerging consensus on the importance of wireless broadband services in rural areas means we will play a vital part in rolling out broadband in those areas where fixed broadband infrastructure can be less economic to deploy and insufficiently flexible—for example in the farming environment. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What progress is the Government making on the Rural Broadband Initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Tenders close tomorrow for companies to submit their bids for the Rural Broadband Initiative. I am confident we will achieve our target of 80 percent of rural households and businesses having access to broadband services of 5 megabits per second or better and the remaining 20 percent on speeds of 1 megabit per second or better within the 6-year period. I expect the first agreement on providing fast rural broadband to be signed by the end of this year. Rural broadband will greatly help economic development and growth in rural areas as people in those areas tap into the same Internet speeds currently enjoyed by their urban counterparts. 
Rahui Katene 
: What action has the Government taken to ensure Maori involvement in the broadband roll-out in the regions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Expectations of community consultation including with iwi was part of the request for proposals of the Rural Broadband Initiative. The request for proposal notes that indications of community support including from iwi will be one of the criteria used in assessing partners that the Government will choose. Maori can choose to approach commercial bidders about becoming partners but at the very least Maori are informed about the broadband developments that will provide better services to their communities. Officials have also liaised with iwi groups including through face-to-face meetings where appropriate. 
Broadband Ultra-fast—Tendering Process 
11. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Is he satisfied that the process for awarding the ultra-fast broadband tender is appropriate; if so why? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Yes; because the Government and Crown Fibre Holdings have followed the utmost standards of probity. I note that the process involved Crown Fibre Holdings analysing and negotiating commercial offers before providing recommendations to shareholding Ministers which is a process in many ways not dissimilar to that developed by the previous Government to approve bids to its Broadband Investment Fund which were also signed off by Ministers. In order to be helpful I also note that the Opposition has made a mistake on its blog. I am actually not a shareholding Minister in Crown Fibre Holdings; that honour belongs to my colleagues the Ministers English and Power. 
Clare Curran 
: Why does he believe there is no conflict of interest with Murray Milner who carried out consultancy work for Chinese company Huawei Technologies a potential bidder to supply services and equipment for the broadband roll-out being at the same time a Crown Fibre Holdings board member who was approving decisions about the tendering process for services and equipment suppliers for that very same equipment and infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Firstly I point out to the member that Huawei Technologies is not a bidder in the process that the Crown Fibre Holdings board is considering. It is potentially a technology supplier to one or more of the bidders but it is not actually involved in the bidding. In relation to Mr Milner and any of the other directors I understand Crown Fibre Holdings has an interest register and a conflict of interest policy which it adheres to. 
Clare Curran 
: Was he aware that Murray Milner carried out consultancy work for Huawei Technologies from June to October 2010 while holding a position on the board of Crown Fibre Holdings; if so why does he still think there is no conflict of interest? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was recently made aware that Mr Milner had done some work for Huawei Technologies but the remainder of my answer is the same as the answer to the previous supplementary question. 
Clare Curran 
: Will Crown Fibre Holdings be providing coordination assistance and commercial and technical advice to the ultra-fast broadband selected partners when electing the equipment suppliers for passive infrastructure and layer 2 equipment for ultra-fast broadband; if so why is Crown Fibre Holdings pushing for there to be common suppliers and for all subsequent respondents to use the same suppliers as stated in a document written on 14 October 2010 which was sent by Crown Fibre Holdings to three selected respondents? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That was quite a long question and I am not quite sure which bit to focus on. Crown Fibre Holdings does have a very clear policy as I said regarding interest and I cannot for the life of me think where the member is coming from on this. Crown Fibre Holdings has a clear interest register and any conflicts are managed. 
Clare Curran 
: How does he reconcile his public statement about Huawei Technologies’ relationship with the Government that “It’s one step removed from government. They are not a bidder in their own right they’re a technology partner. It’s not like there’s going to be any screwing the scrum in a particular way.” with John Key’s singling out the firm as a potential participant in the fibre scheme and the firm’s clearly bidding to be an equipment provider? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are a couple of things. Firstly it is not bidding with Crown Fibre Holdings at all so the last part of the member’s question is completely incorrect and secondly I think it is entirely right for the Prime Minister to point out that it could be a potential partner. A number of people could be potential partners. There is no harm in that. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table four documents if you want to take them individually— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us see if we can take them in one bunch. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table a PowerPoint presentation by Murray Milner of Milner Consulting Ltd titled “UFB impact on New Zealand Transport Capability” delivered at Huawei Technologies’ ultra-fast broadband technology summit on 27 September 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us deal with that. Leave is sought. Is there any objection that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of John Key’s interview with Guyon Espiner on Television New Zealand’s  
Q 
+ 
A 
 programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going to do that. Let us have the next one. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table a letter sent by Crown Fibre Holdings to selected respondents on 14 October 2010 which outlines the process for selecting passive infrastructure and layer 2 equipment suppliers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Dominion Post— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going to do that. 
Fisheries Ministry—Compliance Operations 
12. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What has been the result of recent enforcement activities undertaken by the Ministry of Fisheries? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Over the last year there has been an increase in effective policing in the Ministry of Fisheries just as we have seen effective policing with the Ministry of Justice. Nearly 400 criminal prosecutions have been undertaken between August of last year and this year—280 offences related to recreational fishing 74 offences were poaching and black market offences 38 offences were inshore commercial offences and three offences were deep-water commercial offences. Our fisheries are one of our nation’s most valuable assets and it is very important that the Ministry of Fisheries team has been able to nail these offenders. 
John Hayes 
: What has been the result of legal action taken against commercial fishers in the last year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Commercial operators are regularly inspected and as result of targeted action 41 commercial operators are facing prosecution. This year the ministry undertook one of its most significant prosecutions—misreporting by companies and crew associated with the vessel  
Tomi Maru 87 
. In July all of those charged pleaded guilty and acknowledged misreporting. Sentencing is yet to be carried out but $636000 in sale proceeds has been forfeited to the Crown and $1.1 million has been paid to the Crown by the owner of the  
Tomi Maru 87 
 in order to redeem it from seizure. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how the enforcement obligations of the Crown to tangata whenua and sections 7A and 7B in clause 53 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3) will enable tangata whenua to progress in aquaculture? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: When that bill hits the select committee we hope to hear back from tangata whenua as to how they see it operating and whether it will satisfy their needs. I look forward to their submissions. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have directed the Minister’s attention to clause 53; he is obviously not aware of what— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot do that. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Water-quality Report 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Charles Chauvel seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd report on  
Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010: Status and trends 
. 
This is a particular case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. Although on occasion the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate the circumstances must be exceptional. This issue is an important one but the time to consider it is when the steps that need to be taken to improve freshwater quality emerge from the consultation process that the Government currently has under way. In these circumstances I do not believe that setting aside the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined. 
Alcohol Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Alcohol Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. This bill is the Government’s legislative response to the Law Commission’s report on alcohol legislation  
Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
. I acknowledge the Law Commission’s review the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s original referral to the Law Commission and the commission’s effort at my request to report back a year earlier than planned. 
New Zealand needs a safe and responsible drinking culture. The late 1980s saw liberalisation of the sale of alcohol to create a so-called European-style moderate drinking culture. Further changes followed in 1999. It is clear that those changes have not worked. Excessive drinking and intoxication contributes to our crime rate and our injury rate and affects our general health. It impacts on workplace productivity and contributes to family violence and child abuse. The direct cost to the Government of alcohol-related harm in New Zealand has been put as high as $1.2 billion per year. The costs to New Zealand society are significantly greater. But we must achieve a balance. Addressing harm must be weighed against the positive benefits associated with responsible drinking. The Government’s approach is therefore a considered integrated and balanced package that targets harm without penalising responsible drinkers. 
This is a large bill but its objectives are simple. It zeroes in on alcohol-related harm crime disorder and public health problems especially where our young people are concerned. It aims to reduce excessive drinking and improve the operation of the alcohol licensing system including community input on licensing and to support the responsible sale supply and safe consumption of alcohol. Licences will be harder to get and easier to lose. There will be more scope to object to applications and more grounds to decline them. The bill targets the proliferation of off-licences and clarifies the premises able to sell takeaway alcohol. Buying beer at the so-called corner dairy will end as these licences expire with no chance for renewal. Just as now supermarkets will be able to sell beer and wine but not spirits. 
The Government recognises that different communities have different needs best understood by local people. This bill empowers communities to address local issues like the concentration location and opening hours of alcohol outlets. These are local alcohol policies. Where there is no local trading-hours policy maximum national trading hours will be 8 a.m. until 4 a.m. for on-licences clubs and special licences and 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. for off-licences. Licensed decision makers will be able to set hours within and up to the maximum hours for individual licences. The only way the maximum hours can be changed is by communities through a local alcohol policy. The bill provides a small exception for Anzac Day but there is no other provision for extension of the hours even for nationally important or for that matter major televised events. I expect this issue will be the subject of careful scrutiny at the select committee. The bill focuses strongly on the high and disproportionate harm caused by youth drinking. Risky drinking behaviour is becoming increasingly normalised especially among our young people. The Government is not prepared to stand by and allow excessive and harmful alcohol consumption to be further ingrained into our culture. 
The Alcohol Reform Bill sets a foundation for change. It pulls a number of levers to reduce the availability of and demand for alcohol. Perhaps the most significant proposal is a split purchase age. The bill increases the off-licence purchase age from 18 to 20 while keeping the on-premises age at 18. This proposal is a starting point for debate. I expect the select committee will carefully consider any enforcement or employment complexities of a split purchase age. Supplying alcohol to minors without parental consent or in an irresponsible manner will be an offence. Responsible supply means that common sense host responsibility adult supervision the age of minors the quantity and duration of supply and the availability of food are particular considerations. This aims to encourage parental and individual responsibility for supply to minors and give parents greater control over the supply of alcohol to their children. I expect that the definitions surrounding these matters will be the subject of some discussion also at the select committee. 
Ready-to-drink alcohol has a strong appeal to young people and therefore a high potential for harm to this group. This bill enables the Government to regulate the size and strength of ready-to-drinks. We have proposed limits of 5 percent alcohol content and 1.5 standard drinks per ready-to-drink. Due to existing agreements with Australia a regulation-making process is needed to allow for required consultation. It will also ensure that accurate definitions are developed. This bill adopts further stage one of the Law Commission’s advertising recommendations. It strengthens the existing offence of promoting excessive consumption of alcohol by making it apply to any business. It will be an offence to promote or advertise alcohol that is free of charge to offer any goods or services on the condition that alcohol is purchased to promote or advertise alcohol in a manner likely to have special appeal to minors and to promote discounts on alcohol that could imply it is 25 percent cheaper than normal unless on licensed premises. I will be closely monitoring the submissions on advertising. The adoption of stage one of the Law Commission’s proposals is a starting point for Parliament’s discussion on alcohol advertising and the Government is not ruling out making further changes in the future. 
The bill also revises the criteria for creating liquor ban by-laws so that liquor bans are focused on areas where there is evidence of alcohol-related harm. Importantly and significantly the bill widens the definition of public places for liquor bans to include spaces like car parks and schools that the public can legitimately access. The bill introduces a more responsive penalty for breaching a liquor ban with the possibility of it being in the form of an instant fine issued on the spot or after arrest. Other enforcement changes include a provision for the automatic cancellation of a manager’s certificate for 5 years when a manager is found to have seriously breached his or her licence three times within 3 years. 
Finally the bill enables the Minister of Justice in consultation with the Minister of Health to ban particular alcohol products considered to be particularly dangerous to health or particularly attractive to minors subject to standard regulations processes. The Government continues to investigate minimum alcohol prices. I said when I announced these proposals that retailers would have a year to provide sales and price data after which regulation could be likely. I will advise by the end of the year what information is required and by when. Legislation alone will not change our excessive drinking culture. It can however help us to develop a safe and responsible drinking culture supported by robust public education and treatment interventions. 
For those many New Zealanders who have a very real interest in this particular subject matter now is the time. This is the moment when submissions should be made to the select committee to make those views heard. This forum over at least a 6-month period will provide the place for the public to have their say on this very complex difficult but essential issue for Parliament to consider. I am confident that this bill will help bring down our levels of alcohol-related harm. I am confident that the public will respond to Parliament’s intention to hear their views on this issue. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As the former Associate Minister of Justice who introduced the bill that the Alcohol Reform Bill replaces and who helped write the very broad terms of reference for the most in-depth inquiry into our alcohol laws that New Zealand has ever seen I should be standing in this House today to describe this bill as a tribute to the members of the Law Commission and the more than 3000 New Zealanders who made their views known to it. It is a travesty that I cannot but the truth is that this bill does not even begin to meet the challenge posed by the evidence that the Law Commission presented to the Government about what needs to be done. 
I wanted that report and I wanted the Law Commission to write the bill—and now I know why the Government did not give it time to do so—so that MPs collectively could have said to the public that they had introduced a bill based on the evidence about what needs to be done and were now calling on the public to respond to that. They could have let the political considerations and the application of the conscience vote come into play once those submissions were heard but instead we have a Government that decides to gut the Law Commission’s report in the shape of a Government bill that adds very little to the bill that I introduced over 2 years ago. 
About half a dozen matters are contained in this bill that were not in the bill that I introduced on behalf of the Government of the day. It was the bill that this Government took to a select committee and has allowed to languish there going nowhere. Every single one of the additional matters in the bill that we have today—every single one of them—could have been dealt with by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to the original bill because they are all within the scope of that bill. The Minister of Justice spoke about local alcohol plans. I chipped in to say what a good idea and that I wished I had thought of that. It was in the bill of 2 years ago that we had local alcohol plans. 
The Government has completely failed to acknowledge the unprecedented community response to the harm that alcohol has wrought on communities. There have been marches in the street against the granting of yet another liquor licence from one end of the country to the other. Thousands have attended meetings organised by what started as a small group of health professionals who saw the real costs that alcohol imposes on our health system—$1.2 billion a year. The Minister must be joking if he thinks that is the extent of the harm that we all pay for from our tax dollars. There are healthy city and safer city networks from one end of the country to the other. They have to highlight the property damage that occurs in their communities. There are the unsafe environments in city centres where intoxicated people gather weekend after weekend. There are individuals like Dr Albert Makary from Timaru who puts his own resources into a campaign to win hearts and minds about this issue which he sees destroying families and communities. This Government has completely underestimated the level of community awareness of the extent of the problem and what needs to be done to curb the harm. I use the phrase “curb the harm” because that is the title of the Law Commission report  
Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm 
 which sees so few of its recommendations in this bill. 
I am probably one of the few MPs who have read every page of the Law Commission report but after looking at this bill I ask what the point of that was. All it really did was to show me how little has been done in response to that report. The New Zealand Food and Grocery Council must be slapping itself on the back knowing that it now has more influence than the Law Commission—and it does not even have to provide the evidence to back up its contribution to the problem which is enormous. 
Everyone who is anyone has described this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to grapple with the multitude of alcohol-related problems that must be addressed. This Government has said that it is OK to squander that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity but it is not OK. I think that is a very good line to use in this debate because of the correlation between alcohol use and domestic violence. It is not OK. 
There are four elements that would have been in this bill had the Government been truly willing to deal with the real issues instead of the sham we have seen of side-swiping and sidelining issues such as getting us to look at age as an important issue. Age is not the top issue at all. The four issues are price the rampant commercialisation of alcohol and its treatment as an ordinary commodity advertising and marketing and dangerous drink-driving counter measures. 
When I say “price” I will not be arguing for an across-the-board increase in price through tax. Excise tax is very useful for several purposes but it is next to useless in the face of the power of supermarkets to put up the price of alcohol regardless of an increase in excise tax. The priority is to increase the price of dirt-cheap alcohol and that is why I am arguing for minimum pricing. I refer to the $5.99 bottles of wine. At that price three young women can buy five bottles of wine to preload on rather than buy two bottles of very good wine for the same price. The ones who buy five bottles of $5.99 wine are the most price-sensitive buyers. They are the ones who will change their behaviour when prices go up. Do not let anyone tell us that it will do otherwise. That is the reason for a minimum price per standard drink. The $2 per minimum standard drink price would not touch a $15 bottle of wine. That would stay the same price but it would slightly more than double the price of the $5.99 bottle of wine. 
The second issue the rampant commercialisation of alcohol is evident by the fact that alcohol is usually the first thing we see when we enter a supermarket these days. We do not have to wait to get to the alcohol aisles because the supermarket has specials right at the front door ready to greet us and to remind us that this is the place where dirt-cheap alcohol gets poured into the community. 
Supermarkets do not break the law. I never understood the role of supermarkets when I was Associate Minister of Justice and it is the one thing I regret from that time. Supermarkets make it their business not to break the law and I know why. It is because they have a licence to print money. Supermarkets have no responsibility for what happens when their liquor leaves the premises. They are not responsible for their actions. They do not have to take responsibility and they do not. 
Politicians have allowed supermarkets to sell wine as a matter of convenience. I was not here when that decision was made but I would have voted against it. We let supermarkets sell beer as a matter of convenience as well but that has driven down prices and increased availability and supermarkets can legally wash their hands of the fallout that has occurred. If the public of New Zealand told us as politicians that the trade-off has been too great—convenience for harm—then I would vote to take alcohol out of the supermarkets. It is convenient to buy wine at the supermarket; I do it myself. But the price that we have had to pay for that as a nation is this: the cutthroat loss-leading deep-discounting retail practices of a sector that does not care about what happens out there in the community. It is no wonder the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council has done so well out of this legislation. 
Advertising alcohol makes not one bit of difference to the drinking culture—Yeah right! I am a real fan of irony. “Yeah right!” advertises beer but “Yeah right!” advertising of alcohol makes not one bit of difference to the drinking culture! It will not make one bit of difference until we frame alcohol as a recreational drug as New Zealand’s No. 1 recreational drug which it is and recognise that marketing its consumption and over-consumption runs counter-intuitive to minimising the harm objectives that any regulatory framework governing the legal supply of such a product must have. 
Finally I turn to dangerous drink-driving counter-measures which focus on impairment. Most New Zealanders have been horrified to find out how much a person can drink whilst still legally being able to drive. Albert Makary when on stage in Timaru asked a National MP and I to come on stage carrying the door of a car. I had a real sense of dread that he was going to tell us that someone who had been behind that car door had died. But he did not. It was his daughter who had been in the car. She almost died but so many do die. We have to take further measures on our roads to protect people from the harm that occurs. 
The night that I was on stage in Timaru I answered a question that Albert Makary had asked. He asked why politicians will not change laws such as lowering the blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams and establishing a minimum price for alcohol. I said it was because we the politicians lacked courage. Courage is what we must have. When this bill comes back from the select committee hopefully strengthened by the submissions that are received we must have the courage to make a difference. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I commend the Minister of Justice Simon Power for the very considered way in which he has brought together this sensible package of alcohol reform. 
History is littered with ideological lurches on alcohol law here and abroad. We have had Prohibition the 6 o’clock swill and the ultra-liberalisation that was brought in with the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989. The part I found most ironic about Lianne Dalziel’s contribution is that I remember sharing a platform with her way back in the 1990s where she championed the 1989 Sale of Liquor Act that she has just spent the last 10 minutes rubbishing. Do members know who the key Ministers were? Annette King and Phil Goff were the key Labour members who put in place the Sale of Liquor Act back in 1989. Those are the sorts of ideological lurches that we get from the left rather than common-sense reform. 
This reform package is balanced it is pragmatic and it is thorough. In contrast with what Lianne Dalziel has tried to say it picks up 126 of the 153 recommendations in the Law Commission report. It will make a difference in reducing the harm from alcohol in our community without our becoming a bunch of wowsers and without our imposing penalties on the vast bulk of New Zealanders who have a beer or a glass of wine without causing harm. 
My interest in this issue is both as a constituency MP in Nelson and as the Minister for ACC. Nelson has had a sad surge in violence over the past 6 months and most incidents were connected to the abuse of alcohol. Nelson is no worse than many other communities but I can tell members that the population has had enough and is expecting us to act. It wants a Government to tackle not just crime but the causes of crime. 
As Minister for ACC I have become far more aware of the real fiscal cost of alcohol abuse to our country. Drink-driving is just the tip of the iceberg. Nearly one-quarter of all accidents falls drownings and assaults—costing the Accident Compensation Corporation $650 million a year—have alcohol as a contributing factor. 
I like the part of the Alcohol Reform Bill about stricter licensing. The 1989 laissez-faire approach has not worked. We have too many booze outlets particularly in some of our most vulnerable communities. I also back the tough approach taken to ready-to-drinks or RTDs. The academic may argue that the form of alcohol sold does not matter but the reality is that high-alcohol ready-to-drinks are behind some of the worst abuse. The advantage of lower-alcohol drinks is simply that the bladder starts to fail before the brain does. 
I also back the measures in this bill around the drinking age. I voted for the age of 18 in 1998 but I am happy to put my hand up and say that I got it wrong. I believe that I and Parliament totally underestimated the degree to which the age being 18 has enabled 17 16 and 15-year-olds—and 14 and 13-year-olds actually—to access alcohol. The strength of this bill is that it makes it an offence to supply alcohol to under-18-year-olds it puts some onus on host responsibility and it allows only on-licence sales to 18 and 19-year-olds. 
I also back the provision in this bill that gives our councils far greater discretion over local alcohol laws. There are some areas where the sensible approach is national regulation. I am talking about things like cellphone towers—in terms of my environment portfolio—vehicle standards and building standards. But the reality is that alcohol is an inherently local issue. What is best for the Viaduct Basin in Auckland for Queenstown or for the community of a suburban street in Nelson is quite different and it is quite appropriate that we empower communities to make their own choices in terms of tourism hospitality and harm-reduction. I recognise that different rules are quite appropriate for different neighbourhoods. The extension of alcohol liquor bans as part of what councils can do through their by-laws is exactly the sort of practical measure in this bill that we need to put in place if we are to reduce harm. 
Hundreds of changes are proposed by this bill. As the Minister has said it is not the last word. The community need the opportunity to have their say on these proposals and this bill is a very good starting point for that debate. The Government is committed to listening carefully during the select committee process. 
There is no question about direction. We need to tighten our alcohol laws. We need to work hard to get the detail right so we better manage the harm caused by alcohol and build a more responsible culture in the way we use alcohol in New Zealand. I commend the work of the Minister and the bill to the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The only reason I will vote for the Alcohol Reform Bill to be referred to a select committee is so that the Government can experience the public’s outrage at the abject weakness of its cringing approach to one of New Zealand’s most significant social and economic problems and the damage that alcohol abuse causes to New Zealand and New Zealanders. 
What would a 9-point plan on how the Government of New Zealand could create a major social problem in New Zealand look like? Well first it would take a drug that is known to be of high risk to public health for example the equivalent of a class B drug and legalise it. Better still it would choose a drug that is known to directly cause aggression and depression and is neurotoxic and carcinogenic so that the full range of health and social damage is likely to occur. Secondly the Government would deny that the drug is actually a drug by never mentioning the word and by talking about it as though it were a normal grocery item that people would naturally expect to find in a supermarket. Thirdly the Government would make it really accessible so that it can be bought just about anywhere at any time on virtually any day of the year especially in supermarkets. 
Fourthly the Government would allow full and free commercialisation of it so that the price is really low in order for everyone to easily afford lots of it. Fifthly the Government would make sure that young people of 18 years of age can legally drink on licensed premises but it would confuse the issue by requiring them to be 20 years old in order to buy alcohol to drink elsewhere. Sixth it would elevate the pushing of this drug to be one of the most highly respected careers in the land. The bestowing of New Zealand honours even a knighthood to industry leaders would be a good start and be very effective in promoting it. 
Seventh the Government would make sure that it protected the drug pushers’ right to promote the drug especially to the nation’s families through the most powerful means possible such as television and billboards. It would turn a blind eye to any deception in the advertising such as links between the drug and being cool sexy successful and part of the in-crowd. Eighth the Government would make sure that the drug is linked with everything that New Zealanders feel most proud of especially sport. If there is to be a major international event in New Zealand—dare I mention the Rugby World Cup—the Government would do everything it can to help the drug pushers promote their drug at the event. The ultimate would be if the drug becomes the centrepiece of the event—party central would be an excellent concept to work on and it would also be a great idea to get the Prime Minister behind it. Ninth knowing that New Zealanders more than people in just about any other country in the world enjoy getting around in private motor vehicles make sure that intoxication will not prevent them from driving their cars and get one’s mates in the Automobile Association to back that position. 
The first page of the Law Commission report states: “Alcohol is a legalised drug with the potential to cause serious harm. We propose”—that is the Law Commission—“a new policy framework that amounts to a paradigm shift in the regulation of alcohol compared with the current system. We anticipate there will be considerable resistance to some of the proposed measures.” Well the last outfit I thought would be the most resistant is the Government of New Zealand given the evidence in front of its eyes. 
The Government’s Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce excessive drinking is simply a recipe for the status quo which means continuing disaster. Last weekend’s appalling behaviour at Eden Park where a liquor ban was not enforced is proof that the Government has not gone far enough. My belief is that submissions to the select committee will show the Government how the people of New Zealand really feel about that. It served to highlight the inadequacies in our current laws and it shamed our nation abroad. 
Why does this Government have difficulty accepting that alcohol is a drug? This Government is not in step with the majority of New Zealanders. The mood of the country towards alcohol abuse is changing but it is being led by the public and the media not by the Government. In the same week as the Eden Park shambles organisers of Christchurch’s New Zealand Trotting Cup got it right by implementing a simple wristband system whereby wristbands were removed from patrons thought to be intoxicated. This would have been unheard of even 3 or 4 years ago. It shows that the public is willing to change entrenched drinking habits. 
Who would have thought that the Maori Affairs Committee’s proposal for a smoke-free New Zealand by 2025 would cause hardly a ripple of protest? It is because the time is right. Let us aim for a drunk-free New Zealand too. That is in step with public opinion. Seventy percent of New Zealanders support the proposition to lower the drink-driving blood-alcohol limit yet the Government needs “more research”. Really? What is this Government scared of in face of all the facts? What is this Government scared of in face of all the facts and the political polls which show that the New Zealand population is for the reduction in alcohol abuse? 
Alcohol abuse costs this country billions of dollars every year. The $1.6 billion that the Minister quoted is really just the tip of the iceberg. This Government is almost always a slave to polls yet it is ignoring the poll on liquor reform and I have to ask myself why. Cheap alcohol is one of the main problems but it is not being addressed despite advice and research from New Zealand and international experts. Our road death statistics particularly since the age at which people can purchase alcohol and drink alcohol on licensed premises was lowered to 18 are simply horrific. Reducing the blood-alcohol level from 0.8 to 0.5 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood evidently still needs “more research”. How many more deaths caused by drink-driving must this nation endure before a Government shows the remotest sense of responsibility and courage in addressing the issue? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where were you for 9 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I ask Mr Smith to look at my record of voting on this matter; it will be better than his I bet him. One in every five New Zealanders is a heavy drinker. That is equal to the combined populations of Wellington and Christchurch. I still hear people say that this is a small problem for a small group of New Zealanders. It is not. Sixty percent of all criminal offending in New Zealand is associated with alcohol abuse—60 percent. The Government talks about putting more police on the beat; if it did more about alcohol abuse it would not have to bother. Getting wasted should not be an ambition to which our people aspire. 
This Government is showing abject political weakness over the alcohol debate which begs the question: what is the National Party getting from the liquor industry for the Government’s unwillingness to act decisively? How much money is being put into the victory fund account by the liquor industry for the National Party’s next election campaign? Could we have an answer from National members? 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am personally offended by the suggestion that we the members of the National caucus could have been bought in such a way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that it is outside the Standing Orders to say that someone is in the control of or being in the pay of someone else; there is no question about that. The Hon Jim Anderton did not go that far I grant you but he did raise it by way of a question and I can see that people took it in an edgy way. But I have to say on balance this is to be a House of free speech and people are entitled to say what they believe. This could be a matter where we would take—I am struggling for the word at the moment— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Umbrage? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is not umbrage; it is a matter of taste. The member has spoken in a way that people might find distasteful. But I think he has raised the issue. It is sharp but he has raised it in the form of a question. He has not said that the National Party or a particular party has been bought. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will take aboard the comment in finishing and just ask this: would the liquor industry tell us how much money it has given to the victory fund account of the National Party for the next election? I will be interested in that response as well but I am not holding my breath. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very concerned because the question that you referred to asked “How much money?”. It did not ask “Was there money?” but asked “How much money?”. Therefore this member is saying that the National Party has received money in response to policy. I again take offence. The question was not whether it had happened but how much money was involved. Therefore the inference was certainly that money has changed hands. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I want to say that the position I am now putting to the House is that the liquor industry can answer for itself. Did it give and has it given any money to the National Party’s victory fund account and/or how much? Let the liquor industry answer the question. I am not holding my breath for the answer. 
Simon Bridges 
: It seems to me that a very dangerous precedent is being set by the indication in your ruling which is effectively that a member can ask a question—put something in the form of a question—and get away with it but to do it otherwise is not allowed. Therefore it is all right for me to say that a particular member is senile or ask “Is he senile?” but I cannot make that as a statement of fact. That to me seems very dangerous. It simply means that a member must rephrase everything to ask “Is the member senile and at a point where he should retire?”. If I do it as a question somehow that is OK but if I do it as a statement it is not. It seems to me that is a very dangerous path to go down. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I believe there was genuine public interest in knowing whether and if so how much the liquor industry the advertising industry and the food and grocery industry have contributed to political parties. I believe there is genuine public interest in knowing whether there is any linkage between the amount of moneys these industries contribute to political parties and the outcome in a policy sense. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The issue here is not the electoral law and what disclosures there should be in respect of which the National Party is absolutely committed to complying with the law. The issue that the junior National whip has taken offence to very appropriately is the appalling allegation that members such as myself have been influenced in our decision on this very important public policy issue by such things. There is absolutely no evidence for that. It is grossly offensive and wrong and if you are to allow the sorts of statements and claims that have been made by Mr Anderton then in my view you are effectively allowing the names of good members of this House to be muddied in a way that I have not seen in my 20 years in this House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To take the converse of the point made by Mr Bridges were you to rule that it was outside the Standing Orders for members of this House to allege influence on a party by parties outside this Parliament I submit to you that that would unduly constrain the free and frank exercise of Parliament’s privileges—for example under Speaker’s ruling 34/2. In this case it seems obviously inexplicable to members of the Opposition that the Government which has committed itself to pro-health policies should have weakened its position on alcohol reform. We are at a loss to find any other reasonable explanation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is starting to make statements about the issue and that is out of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I say that the protest by the National Party is interesting because if you read the  
Hansard 
 my question asked whether any money had been given. I did not ever suggest that it influenced anybody; I asked whether money had been given. That is a question for the National Party and the liquor industry. I am interested in the answers. I did not say it influenced anybody; I just wanted to know the facts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I refer you quite specifically to Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1): “A member may not use words suggesting that a party in the House is or has been dominated instructed or directed …”. I say the key word is “suggesting”. Did the phrase that was used by Mr Anderton suggest that members on this side of the House were influenced by the money in the claims that he made? Of course he was making that suggestion and that is why you should uphold the Speaker’s ruling and not allow such allegations to be made that members on this side of the House say are wrong and offensive. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has had two goes. I just say to members that this is a very difficult issue. One of the first things a Speaker asks of this House is the right to free speech and the right to free speech is a right to free speech. This House will suffer if people do not have free speech. In having that freedom of speech members have to be responsible for what they say. If members say something that is manifestly wrong demonstrably wrong and offensive they can be referred to the Privileges Committee and the committee can deal with that matter. So it has to be something that is particularly wrong. 
Secondly there are matters that fall into the area of taste. They may not necessarily be wrong but they are distasteful. I want to pick up on this theme a little bit because I agree with Dr Nick Smith that Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1) is interesting and it was correctly quoted: “A member may not use words suggesting that a party in the House is or has been dominated instructed or directed …”. Now “dominated instructed or directed” are direct connections. I understood Mr Anderton’s proposition to be that people had used influence. Now influence is a step well back from being dominated instructed or directed. Influence is much more diffuse; people can be influenced or not influenced. 
The second point that Mr Anderton raised and I guess it is a legitimate point for a member of Parliament to raise is whether members in the House have been influenced to a decision by way of other events outside. This is common conjecture on radio talkback or in any group of people that one meets. People do ask these questions. One of the defences we have against that as members of Parliament is the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to disclose members’ interests so that people can see that our interests have not affected our decisions and so that members are open in disclosing those. 
It is also not in order to say that the Government favours one class against another particularly when it is suggesting that this continues to be done for a party’s ends. I do not get that from what Mr Anderton said. Mr Anderton raised questions about whether money had been made available and whether it had influenced the Government. In this debate National has more calls and members can make their position very clear. I come back to one issue which I think was from the English Parliament where a person was asked to disclose a name. That person said they could not disclose the name but they could do it as quickly as they could say “Jack Robinson”. That was not offending Speakers’ rulings because it was done indirectly. 
I say to members that this is very difficult but I feel on balance and in the interests of free speech Mr Anderton has raised issues and National members have the opportunity to rebut them and he has not crossed the line of saying that National was “dominated instructed or directed”. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now ask you to give me your direction on whether Speaker’s ruling 52/6 might apply in this case given that it is my distinct memory that the member asked how much money—not whether any money—was given. I would say that Speaker’s ruling 52/6 certainly goes to the question at hand there. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I would like to thank the member opposite for raising that Speaker’s ruling and I also thank the Hon Dr Nick Smith for raising Speaker’s ruling 52/4(1). In assisting your consideration of those points I refer you to Speaker’s rulings 52/4(2) and (3) which I am sure you will have available but for the sake of listeners they state: “(2) a member making such a suggestion in an indirect way or by means of a question does not offend …”—which I think covers completely Mr Anderton’s position—and also “(3) when a member states that a party has received its marching orders directions … the member does not offend unless the Speaker is satisfied there is a clear suggestion that such orders directions or instructions have been or are being acted upon …” and there is no clear suggestion of that nature. 
A question was raised because we could not explain the Government’s behaviour but no direct suggestion has been made that the Government has acted in a particular way. The question has simply been raised and it should be a matter of public record whether any donations have been made to the Government on or around the same period that there has been consideration of this issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a very difficult issue. As members can see it is very difficult to make decisions off the cuff but I say to members that had Mr Anderton said that the National Party had received money I would have said that he was completely out of order. If Mr Anderton had said it had received money for these decisions I would have said he was completely out of order. 
The member indicated to me that he said that but I understood that Mr Anderton—and he may be able to correct me here because I just cannot quite remember the exact words—was asking whether National had received donations and to disclose those and whether those donations had influenced its decision. That was the nature of it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I never mentioned that they had influenced its decision. I asked whether it had been given any money and if it had how much. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member made a comment earlier on. That was the second one; what was the first one? Just refresh my memory on that. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will read from the notes if you like so that we get it right. It will be in  
Hansard 
 anyway. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is too late then. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If I can find it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Next week will be all right. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: At least I am not reading the wrong speech. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask members not to make interjections. I asked the member a serious question. I want the member to answer the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The relevant section is: “How much money is being put into the victory fund account of the National Party by the liquor industry?”. “Nothing” is an answer “$1” is an answer “$1 million” is an answer—any answer will do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have consulted the Clerk and I will reflect on my decision here. Speakers’ rulings 52/6 and 51/4 point out that a member may not allege that the Government favours the interests of one class. I think that in the way the member has raised this there is very clearly an allegation that the Government has come to a conclusion for a donation. I think the member has crossed the line at that point. There is a very clear allegation in that. If the member had simply asked: “Have there been donations made and if so for what amount and have donations been made that have influenced the decision?” then that is not an allegation. That is a question and it is different from an allegation. So I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am happy to withdraw the comment I made and ask whether money has been given to the National Party by the liquor industry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I say to the member that I want him to withdraw the comments. I ask him to stand and withdraw the comments then he can continue his speech and rephrase the words how he likes. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I withdraw the comments and end my speech by asking whether the liquor industry has given any money to the National Party’s victory fund account for next year or any money to the National Party during the period of this debate. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The stars were aligned for a historic once-in-a-generation law change that would reduce our heavy-drinking culture and the damage that alcohol is causing our society. We had this highly acclaimed Law Commission report that promised a comprehensive package of reforms which had overwhelming public support and cross-party support in this Parliament. But the Government has blown this one-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle this huge and damaging social problem because it does not have the political courage to stand up to the liquor advertising hospitality food and grocery industries. 
The Government has blown this opportunity because it has chosen to put the vested interests of those industries ahead of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. It really is as simple as that and that is why the question that Mr Anderton asked—whether money has been donated by those industries to the National Party—is such a relevant issue. Instead the Government has come up with the Alcohol Reform Bill that is doomed to fail because it fails to address the key drivers of alcohol abuse: the extraordinarily cheap price of alcohol and the saturation marketing and advertising of alcohol. It also fails to tackle the crucial issue of increasing the blood-alcohol limit. 
We live in an alcohol-saturated society; alcohol is absurdly cheap. It is available round the clock 7 days a week in almost every dairy and supermarket in the land. Liquor outlets have doubled over the past decade. There are 14500 of them and many of them are clustered in low-income areas. We are subjected to saturation marketing and advertising of liquor everywhere we turn. Harmful drinking has become so commonplace that it is seen as something that is inevitable and somehow normal. It is unfortunate that this bill will do little if anything to change our heavy-drinking culture or to reduce the problems related to binge drinking crime traffic accidents date rape and domestic violence. This is a tragedy. 
As Doug Sellman pointed out yesterday this bill “… fails to implement every substantial measure that would actually reduce the excessive drinking culture.” The Government appears determined to maintain the status quo of low prices high accessibility unrelenting advertising and drink-driving. That is a perfect recipe for maintaining a heavy-drinking culture or as Professor Jennie Connor from Otago University put it the measures proposed in this bill are like “fighting a bush fire with a couple of garden hoses for the next 20 years.” Although the bill refuses to act in these important areas it overacts in other areas. It includes heavy-handed provisions that give police excessive unnecessary and Draconian powers to arrest people without a warrant. These provisions infringe on the basic civil and political rights of our democracy such as the right against arbitrary arrest and the right to a presumption of innocence. We can reduce the harm of alcohol without trampling on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These are terrible provisions and we will fight to get rid of them. 
Another general concern with the bill is it targets young people in a politically expedient way when 92 percent of heavy drinkers are aged 20 and over. It is too easy too simplistic to divert the debate into one about the drinking age when the problems of binge drinking affect every single age group in New Zealand. In diluting the Law Commission’s proposed reforms to the point where they will not be effective the Government as others have pointed out is completely out of step with public opinion which has shifted dramatically in the past year. People are clamouring for a tougher regime. They are marching in the streets for a tougher regime. They have given huge support to the Law Commission’s reforms and almost universal condemnation for the Government’s decision to rule out any price increase or reduce the blood-alcohol limit. 
It is recognised around the world that probably the most effective way of discouraging teenage drinking is to make alcohol more expensive. This of course is particularly the case in New Zealand where alcohol is sold in supermarkets in a predatory fashion at ridiculously low below-cost prices to lure people particularly young people through the door. The Government has acknowledged that putting up the price of tobacco has been an incredibly powerful tool in reducing smoking. Tariana Turia said that raising the price of cigarettes has provided a strong incentive for smokers to quit. It has helped to dissuade young people from ever starting to smoke. Why on earth do the same arguments not apply to liquor? 
It is also blindingly obvious that alcohol advertising should be treated in exactly the same way as tobacco advertising. Alcohol advertising glamorises and normalises alcohol. It acts as a powerful recruiter of young drinkers. It links the rites of passage for young people to the consumption of alcohol and it creates enormous peer pressure to drink. I know this because I have a 20-year-old son. When alcohol companies sponsor sports clubs rock concerts and other events it embeds those brands and products into the lives of young people. We know that 90 percent of 5 to 17-year-olds see at least one alcohol advertisement on television every week. International research shows that this predisposes them to drinking well before they are 18. If the Government is serious about stopping young people from drinking then this is the very first issue it should tackle. Its refusal to do so—no doubt because of the pressure from advertisers and the powerful liquor industry—seriously weakens this bill and the impact it will have. 
The Green Party has serious concerns about the Draconian provisions in this bill that will allow police to arrest a person in an area with a liquor ban without a warrant if they suspect—merely suspect—that that person is carrying alcohol. The bill also gives police powers to demand under threat of arrest that people they suspect may be breaking a liquor ban give them the name address and whereabouts of any other person connected in any way with the alleged offence. No reasons are given as to why these arbitrary powers have been sneaked into the bill. The Minister of Justice says they are there because the police want them. Of course the police would like to arrest people without a warrant but the fact is that these provisions breach civil and political rights that are fundamental in our democracy. Freedom from arbitrary arrest and presumption of innocence—we take these rights for granted at our peril and it is our job as MPs to uphold these rights on behalf of all New Zealanders. We can put in place protections against harm caused to our communities by alcohol but we should not use this bill as an excuse to sneak in additional police powers—Draconian police powers. The Green Party will fight to get rid of these incursions of police powers over our fundamental freedoms. 
There are other serious flaws in this bill. It exempts the police Fire Service and Defence Force bars from liquor licensing requirements. It exempts casinos from having to comply with licensing hours which will have the perverse effect of encouraging people in Auckland and Christchurch to head down to a casino when bars are closed in order to gamble as well as to drink. 
The Green Party will support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it contains provisions we support such as giving communities a say on liquor licensing provisions and allowing local councils to develop alcohol policies and control trading hours as well as having more say over whether to grant any further liquor licences. But we will vigorously oppose the police provisions in the bill. We will put forward many amendments to remove the many flaws in this bill and to extend its provisions in relation to crucial issues such as the price and marketing of alcohol. Thank you very much. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. Like some other members we have grave concerns about much of this legislation. It is not enough merely to be seen to be taking a serious problem seriously. Many of the measures in the bill will not have the desired or intended effect that has been spoken about today but will impinge on the majority of people who drink responsibly. Rather than addressing the causes of this problem this bill addresses only the symptoms. 
The ACT Party will have a split vote on this bill; three of our members will be opposing it and two will be supporting it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee but they want to voice their grave concerns about this legislation. 
As lawmakers we have a duty to step back and ask ourselves questions. Do our current laws serve us well and do we need change? If we need change we should ask what the role of Government should be and what should be left to individuals and communities. Does ever more restrictive and stringent regulation really help or does it take away the self-responsibility that is inherent in our society and result in the statute book replacing common sense and good behaviour? 
This bill is based on Law Commission report 114 which made 153 recommendations to Parliament. The Government has issued its response accepting 113 of the recommendations. Now we are going through the process of passing and implementing law. The Government’s response is comprehensive and it covers as others have said many areas: the licensing framework and enforcement of that framework; the management of alcohol in public places through liquor bans; parental consent and supervision; advertising; and—the issue on which much of the public focus lies—the alcohol purchase age. All of those things are done with the best of intentions but good intentions on their own are not enough. Those are very specific proposals to solve a much broader but poorly articulated problem—that of problem drinking: binge drinking irresponsible drinking by those of all ages and drinking that ends in illness or violence or both. But we have a quandary do we not because people enjoy drinking and the majority do so in moderation. 
We have not heard about the social benefits of drinking. People do enjoy it but we have not heard about those benefits and that is because people want to continue drinking. They do not want to have the prohibition debate despite the fact that in listening to Lianne Dalziel Jim Anderton and parts of Sue Kedgley’s speech we actually heard arguments for prohibition which never ever works. 
There is no denying that there are real harms from alcohol but it is important to weigh the benefits in any cost-benefit analysis. It is clear that there is a cost but the size of the cost is very material to determining the correct policy course. When considering reform it is important to examine the facts. Often forgotten is the fact that when liquor laws were liberalised in the late 1980s alcohol consumption per head of population fell—it dropped. Although consumption has increased recently along with incomes but only slightly it is still significantly lower than it was 30 years ago. New Zealand has the 13th lowest level of alcohol consumption of the 30 OECD countries. We consume about half the amount of alcohol per head of population of countries such as France and Italy. 
We must beware the unintended consequences of regulation. Many of the proposed reforms in this bill will not have the intended effect. It is fair to say that the old laws caused problems. The 6 o’clock pub closing created the 6 o’clock swill. The culture of course was to swill as much alcohol as possible before the bar closed and the sawdust on the floors of bars was not there in order to add to the rustic charm. Thankfully those days are gone and we now have a lively and diverse drinking scene which is not heavily regulated. Because of this change of scene we have some of the top bars and restaurants in the world. 
My critics will be apoplectic by now shouting about Courtenay Place at 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday mornings and the unseemly Viaduct Basin sights. Am I underestimating the harms? I do not believe that the answers lie in rigid legislation that provides the wrong incentives and therefore the wrong behaviours. The truth is that society’s attitude toward alcohol and bad behaviour is what determines how serious a problem alcohol consumption is. 
In many other societies and Italy is a good example public drunkenness is simply not tolerated; people do not put up with it. But what do we do here in New Zealand? We walk down the street and we turn the other way so that we can ignore the problem. 
All of this says to me that no laws relating to alcohol consumption will really have the desired effect. Laws can try to modify behaviour but ultimately it is social attitudes that matter. Laws will not change those attitudes; education campaigns may. When we refuse to tolerate drunken behaviour people will stop behaving that way in public. So what is the answer? There is of course no silver bullet. A change in societal attitudes to drunkenness is a very good start. We must never get to the stage of assuming that only the police can deal with bad behaviour. Parents accepting responsibility for their children is a huge factor. 
Recent academic studies show that parental modelling of drinking is a large determinant of their children’s drinking behaviour. Young problem drinkers are almost always the product of parents who are problem drinkers. The studies also show that provision of alcohol by parents is a determinant of drinking behaviour. Our kids learn from us. 
Age control is a red herring. The 18 versus 20 age debate merely detracts from the real issue. Inappropriate consumption is inappropriate at age 14 age 18 or 20 age 35 age 60 or age 99. That is why I support keeping the alcohol purchase age at 18 and have been very impressed with the Keep It 18 campaign. This will of course be a conscience vote and like most parties the ACT Party will probably have differing views on this matter. I will say it again: to turn this debate into an attack on the young only serves to ignore the real issues with alcohol consumption in New Zealand. 
This week the Attorney-General raised in a report some quite frightening issues and those have been referred to by the previous speaker Sue Kedgley. Firstly a power of arrest for an infringement offence raises an issue of arbitrariness on several counts. If there is a risk to public disorder alternative powers of arrest are already open to police. Secondly the Attorney-General’s report raised concerns about a new push in the bill to allow police to compel someone suspected of an infringement to give the name address and whereabouts of anyone connected in any way with the alleged offence. The bill also has a number of reverse onus provisions. All of these are a blatant attack on our freedoms. 
It is fitting that today—Armistice Day—we also consider freedom and living in a free society. A free society is one where other people cannot decide whether we drink alcohol smoke tobacco engage in prostitution gamble or box. We cannot legislate or decide for other people. It is for individuals to make their own choices. 
I want to finish with a principle that we should base good law on. Good law should be clear enforceable and routinely enforced. If the proposals do not meet those criteria we should go straight back to the drawing board. That is because the outcome is the most important thing. We need real solutions not just to be seen to be taking a serious problem seriously. It is about diagnosing the problem accurately looking at what will work and then once we have the right plan enforcement enforcement enforcement. We must start with enforcement of our current laws and then add a large dollop of education into the mix to show that we are serious. We must not get in the way of people helping themselves because that is when we will see real change. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Today is Armistice Day—the day we remember the deaths of soldiers and civilians who were sacrificed on the altar of war and greed. Today as we consider the Alcohol Reform Bill we also remember the death of soldiers and civilians who were sacrificed on the altar of ignorance drunkenness profit greed and the ongoing unwillingness of Governments of both persuasions to put an end to the destruction visited upon all of our communities by alcohol in all its pernicious and evil forms. And today as we consider this bill we also remember the families who bear the scars of lives lost to cirrhosis of the liver cancer depression alcoholism and heart disease and those families suffering the lasting effects of drink-driving and alcohol-related falls drownings poisoning assault and injury and of foetal alcohol syndrome. 
As we think of that let us also remember that back in 1769 before alcohol even got here botanist Joseph Banks noted that for Maori “water is their universal drink” and that Maori showed great repugnance for liquor. That was a comment backed up by a 1999 health services research centre study which said that “Prior to contact with Pakeha Maori lived in one of the few parts of the world that had never developed alcoholic beverages. The Inuit people of Canada the Trukese of Micronesia and a number of Native American tribes share with Maori the attribution of being indigenous peoples who did not develop alcoholic drinks.” Yet for all of that the problem of alcoholism within Maori society had gotten so bad that even before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi European captains were moved to lodge formal complaints against Tamati Waka Nene and other chiefs who were boarding their ships even before they had berthed in the Hokianga Harbour to find and destroy the barrels of liquor that were being brought into Tai Tokerau. 
It is a sad commentary on our liquor laws in Aotearoa today that even as that historical evidence was being given at the Ngapuhi hearings in Panguru a few weeks ago Sonny Tau chairperson of Ngapuhi was condemning the opening of yet another liquor store in Kaikohe in 2010. It is sad too that not long after the Treaty was signed a petition was presented to Parliament by Haimona Te Aoterangi in 1874 which said “Liquor impoverishes us; our children are not born healthy because parents drink to excess and the child suffers; it muddles men’s brains and they in ignorance sign important documents and get into trouble thereby; grog also turns the intelligent men of the Maori race into fools … grog is the cause of various diseases which afflict us.” 
So today we have this bill to repeal to replace and to amend a whole bunch of laws but to what end? Maori continue to drink and die in the same horrific and unacceptable numbers in 2010 as they did in 1810. For Maori there is greater likelihood of harmful effects from alcohol than for non-Maori twice the rate of severe alcohol-related problems and four times the rate of alcohol-related deaths. Yet Governments of both persuasions continue to tinker with a framework dedicated to achieving bugger all. 
While Maori continue to suffer and die at appalling rates politicians prattle on about people needing to have a more mature attitude to alcohol. They introduce bills like this one with licensing exemptions parental consent requirements regulation provisions clauses about local authority policy and the like and an absolute cast-iron guarantee that very little change will come about as a result of this bill going through the House. 
I hope Maori will make submissions on this bill that recognise the history of non-alcoholism and the impact of colonisation and the continuing destruction brought about by alcohol. I hope they will but I will not be surprised if they do not. Maori have tried direct action. We have done the petition buzz we have marched we have haka-ed we have submitted and we have done the rahui but for what? So that we can do it all again while we watch the statistics shuffle around and our communities continue to suffer? No we need a better focus we need a new strategy and we need another angle. 
The only angle that might work is the one that Tariana has put before this House: Whanau Ora. Unless we can change the thinking of whanau we will not change the environment in which alcoholism runs rampant and unless we can do that we will be going nowhere fast. We need to support whanau-focused alcohol and drug addiction programmes and recovery and restoration services and we need to take a collective approach to build on the strengths of whanau to reduce alcohol-related harm. 
So the Maori Party will support this bill but we will do so reluctantly because we know that tinkering around with legislation will not fix the problem. Only courage will do that. I suspect that there are too many people in this House whose courage will last only until they are offered their next drink. Kia ora tatou. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am privileged to be able to take this opportunity to speak on the Alcohol Reform Bill and maybe to answer some of the questions that have been raised in the course of other speeches. It is difficult to cover in any significant depth the large number of issues that have been raised but it is important to speak about a number of them. 
Over the course of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill that is currently before it we have heard a large number of submissions on a number of these issues too. Probably the most commonly made submissions have been about the inability of local people to have an impact on the procedure for granting consent to applications on the basis of the proliferation of liquor outlets in local communities. I find it most frustrating to hear from people who have been in this House for a long time and who are critical of where this bill does not go while knowing that they largely sat on their hands while laws were promoted that did not allow local people in their own communities to submit for example on the placement of a liquor store across the road from a school. For instance we have the situation in Glen Innes where young people in school uniform can walk across the road from their high school purchase a ready-to-drink for about $1 drink it and go back to school that afternoon supposedly to carry on with their school work. This bill will allow for local alcohol plans to be developed. It will allow local people to have an impact on the consent process and so it should. 
It is also ridiculous to think back to a time when this Parliament decided that we should all start to drink like the French do turning a blind eye to the alcoholism problem that they have in their country which is far more significant than it is in our country and trying to address for instance our binge drinking culture by way of legislation. The point has already been well made that legislation will not change that culture and that only a change of attitude will. The bill seeks then to impose liability on parents and caregivers for the alcohol that they supply to minors. It requires that if they are to supply alcohol to minors who are not their children then they need to have a positive authorisation to do that from the parents and caregivers of those minors. At the moment we live in a country where if a parent wants to put on a birthday party for his or her 16-year-old child that 16-year-old can invite all his or her friends and the parent can put a pallet of booze in the garage say “Go to it.” and commit no offence. 
Traditionally the laws on the sale of liquor within this country have been a dog’s breakfast. What happens is that Governments periodically titivate around the edges of them trying to tinker with them and every few years they have to have a major overhaul. In respect of what has been done in the last few years this legislation is a major overhaul. It may well be that members on the other side of the House are not happy with how far this bill goes but it is significant. It addresses for instance retail outlets the hours during which alcohol can be sold and the supermarket component of the alcohol industry which has grown to such a proportion that 70 percent of the alcohol consumed in this country is bought from supermarkets. It then tries to deal with the quandary of the fact that supermarkets are the most compliant sellers of takeaway alcohol in the country in terms of not serving to under-age or intoxicated people but at the same time they must bear the responsibility of having supplied through their retail outlets the vast amount of alcohol that does cause problems for our law enforcement agencies our families and our social agencies. 
This bill also seeks to deal with the conundrum of ready-to-drinks or RTDs which have become very much the gateway product of choice for young people who are starting to drink. Mature adults supposedly who are in charge of companies have made alcohol and advertised it as alcohol that does not taste like alcohol—alcohol that tastes like lolly water—in order to entice people to start drinking alcohol at a young age and to then maintain them as clients of their particular brand. This bill seeks to limit the alcohol content of ready-to-drinks to 5 percent—to limit it to one and a half standard drinks. Within the select committee we expect to have some discussion on that and some concerns will be raised by the alcohol sector. But the other thing we must also recognise is that every different part of the alcohol sector is standing there pointing at another part of that sector and saying it is the one to blame. In fact this bill seeks to limit the activities of every part of the sector and to deal with those parts as a group which is a good thing. 
I take issue with some points made by speakers on behalf of the ACT Party and the Progressive party. I find it to be absolutely abhorrent that someone who has been in Parliament from the early 1980s and who has stood and maybe voted in certain ways but who has largely taken no public role in condemning the use of alcohol for well over 25 years then seeks to call people who are involved in the wine industry or the retail grocery industry drug pushers. I find that absolutely ridiculous. I also take issue with the ACT Party which is prepared to push and promote the “three strikes” legislation which largely deals with people who commit offences against another person while under the influence of alcohol. That party wants to further liberalise the alcohol laws and will not vote for this bill which seeks to constrain people when they are sourcing alcohol the very firewater that creates those offences in the first place. 
It is also important to note something in respect of the comments made by the Green Party and Maori Party with regard to infringement offences. Currently the law on the liquor bans that operate all around this country is such that a power of arrest goes with them. At various times of the year—for instance New Year’s Eve—we have a situation in some of our resorts whereby 160 170 or maybe 200 people are arrested because they had liquor in an open container in a public place. They are taken back to the police station and confined in a cell for several hours then let go. This bill seeks to create an infringement offence for that matter so that that detention is not required. At the same time it allows for a short-term power of arrest so that such people can be dealt with but then given an infringement notice and let go without needing to go through the process of being fingerprinted and photographed so as to streamline the infringement on their liberty. 
I note that there has been a negative New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report from the Attorney-General on this bill. I look forward to dealing with the issues raised in it during the select committee process and I have no doubt those issues will be debated vociferously within the committee. I would expect that to occur. We discussed this morning the prospect of this bill coming before the committee. We are all looking forward to dealing with it at a number of locations around the country and to receiving submissions from the many people who will want to engage with the committee in this debate. Thank you. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill. As my colleagues have said Labour approaches this legislation disappointed that what appears to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make some changes has not been taken up to the full extent that it could have been. But we will vote for the first reading of this bill because there are aspects of the legislation that we are in support of and there are other elements where we would like to use the select committee process to advance our view with regard to different aspects of the legislation. 
At the outset before I touch on the one particular topic I would like to raise in the House this afternoon I say that I agree with some of the earlier speakers particularly Heather Roy who made the point that legislation alone will not make the changes that we need. I totally agree with that. I think attitude change in our society is equally as important as the law changes that Parliament can pass. If we believe that we can just pass law and that people will pore over our  
Hansard 
 details read the statute book and make their decisions on that basis alone then I think we are deluding ourselves. We need a two-pronged approach of attitude change and leadership in the community but simply relying on that will not do it; we do need to make sure that our laws are robust. 
In that respect the Law Commission report which was set up by the previous Labour Government and was reported under this Government—and Simon Power has taken that work through to the legislation that we are debating today—provided not only that once-in-a-generation opportunity that I spoke of but also a lot of political cover for the Government of the day. I do not pretend that these are easy issues for a Government to grapple with as people do not necessarily line up along philosophical lines on these kinds of topics. But there was an opportunity for the Government to make the best use of the political will that exists in Parliament to make some of those changes. I think it is worth making that point. 
This reform bill contains 10 different parts which amend many different laws. The aspect I want to speak about today is something that is not in the bill but could have been. I believe it is a huge and damning oversight on the part of the Government that it has not taken up the recommendation that was in the Law Commission report and also that it has not been able to take up the political will that was there. I believe that in the first reading of this reform bill there should have been provisions that lowered the blood-alcohol concentration level for adults from 0.08 to 0.05. I believe if that provision had been included in this reform bill which touches on many pieces of legislation then the Government would have found on a conscience vote that the overwhelming majority of the House would support it. 
The Law Commission report on which this legislation is based has made that clear and indeed the Minister of Transport himself when this issue was being debated as part of Safer Journeys the road safety strategy said that he thought the current limits were ridiculous only for him to not follow through when the decision had to be made to include it either in this legislation or in alternative legislation that is currently before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
It is an idea whose time has come. Over 300 studies have shown the effect of alcohol on drivers and it is a terrible terrible effect indeed. In our country roughly one-third of our annual road toll is made up of deaths caused by alcohol. Many many thousands of drivers are injured over the course of a decade as a result of alcohol. I also note in passing that drug-driving is a factor in a number of these accidents as well. 
New Zealand now stands as one of the countries in the Western World that has the highest tolerance of alcohol allowed in the blood whilst still giving drivers the ability to drive on our roads. I think that is absolutely terrible. Indeed we know from those studies that by reducing the drink-driving limit we could make a real impact on our road toll straight away. 
There is no doubt that there is public support. Two-thirds of people who participated in a  
One News 
 poll believed that the alcohol limit should be lowered to 0.05 and 76 percent of people who responded to a  
Herald on Sunday  
campaign nominated a drink-driving limit of effectively 0.05. Even the Minister of Transport in his own Safer Journeys document suggested that 85 percent of people had a genuine desire to see the alcohol limit come down. 
We are left with arguments against this measure which I do not find compelling at all. The first argument I hear from the Government for not including that measure in this legislation is that Labour never did it. What a previous Government did or did not do cannot be the basis of public policy in New Zealand. There are many reasons why Governments do not do things. Sometimes it is simply the passage of time. Sometimes it is simply an idea whose time has come and I believe this is one of those. 
Labour’s decision to support the lowering of the alcohol limit is based on two key points. Firstly the Labour Government’s road safety vision was written in 2000—10 years ago. It ran out this year and this Government has picked it up with Safer Journeys for the next 10 years to put out what its vision is. In 2000 the blood-alcohol level was not the big road safety issue. In 2000 members will recall speed was often the thing Governments were looking at. I believe that now 10 years on there is a desire in the community to see the blood-alcohol concentration limit lowered. 
The other point worth noting is that the Law Commission was tasked with going away and looking at everything. I agree with what other speakers have said. Too often in this debate we have chosen one topic and said that if everyone voted a certain way on that one topic then every disaster and every mischief in the world would go away. Sure enough everyone feels good at the time and lots of back-patting goes on but we are still in the same situation. The Law Commission’s once-in-a-generation opportunity through Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s work gave us the chance to look at things afresh and that was one of the recommendations that came back to the Minister. But it has not found its way for us to progress it any further. 
It cannot be an argument that the Labour Government did not do this because we could then stand here and say that the National Government that had 9 years before us did not do it. National could shoot back and say that the 6 years of the Labour Government in the 1980s did not do it. That is not the way to conduct a proper and sensible debate. We need to talk about tomorrow not yesterday. We have offered our political support to the Government for this measure. 
The second argument the Government puts up for not lowering the limit to 0.05 is that not enough data exists. This is not a strong argument at all. The Government’s own discussion document which was launched here in Parliament with great fanfare and was signed off makes the point that there have been 300 studies over 50 years. We could cut and slice the data any way we like. It is clear that our roads are safer for our families our children and all the people in our community when the blood-alcohol concentration is lower than 0.08. 
The third argument that comes up—and to be fair it is not used by the Government but by other people—is that the problem is not drivers who drive with a blood-alcohol concentration of between 0.05 and 0.08; the problem is the drivers who are well and truly over the limit. On the face of it that argument is worthy of investigation. A study done in Canberra showed that by lowering the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 as every state and territory in Australia has done the overall consumption of alcohol amongst drivers fell. In fact in terms of those very extreme drink-driving cases where people were at 0.15 and 0.2 which are phenomenal levels of alcohol there was a rapid decrease of over one-third in the first instance and nearly 60 percent in the second instance when those limits fell. Under the 0.05 limit not only do we get drivers who are drinking at a much lower level but those who keep on drinking and get to 0.08 and cannot make the decision to stop drinking do not get to the much higher levels which often cause devastation on the roads. I am sure the Minister of Transport would be aware of those 300 studies. 
Those are the three arguments often put up by the Government that have led it to take the decision not to include the lowering of the blood-alcohol concentration limit in this Alcohol Reform Bill which amends many pieces of legislation. 
The freedom argument was raised by the ACT Party. ACT members talked about the freedom of people to choose to drink and then drive. Freedom is a very important principle in a democracy and I believe people should be free to use our roads safely knowing that the decisions and actions of others will not wipe them out or cause devastation. I think the ACT members were putting up a serious argument. Freedom involves good decision-making and it involves good judgment and I believe that at a 0.08 blood-alcohol concentration where people are legally intoxicated they cannot be expected to be in a position to exercise the good judgment that that freedom requires. I hope they will consider that argument. 
The political will is there for this to happen the public support is there and all the research is available. It is a real shame that the Government has wimped out on this particular issue. The Government has decided on the political judgment of the Minister of Transport not to do it. I could not describe it any better than Tom Scott in his cartoon in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. He portrays Steven Joyce saying: “If there is any proof linking alcohol intake to the road toll rest easy NZ … I will find it.” 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege to participate in the first reading of the Alcohol Reform Bill. It is one of the major reforms that this Government has initiated. Alcohol has been a part of all cultures in ancient history and we cannot ban alcohol from our society. But with this Alcohol Reform Bill we want to reduce the harm caused by alcohol in our society. 
The Alcohol Reform Bill will help to ensure that the sale supply and consumption of alcohol is undertaken in a safe and responsible manner. This bill also helps the system to minimise the harm caused by the excessive and inappropriate consumption of alcohol. The bill will repeal and replace the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. This bill will implement the Government’s decisions on alcohol law reform. These decisions were made in response to the Law Commission’s 2010 report  
Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm. 
Alcohol is one of the major causes of crime. The National-led Government under the leadership of the Rt Hon John Key; the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power; and the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins has been working hard to reduce crime in our society. The introduction of this bill is one more step towards making our society safe. 
I come from a part of the country in which there is a very high level of alcohol problems. I also represent a community that has a very high stake in this trade in the form of retail outlets liquor shops restaurants and bars. Alcohol plays a part in 30 percent of all offences and in 34 percent of all incidents of family violence. Alcohol is estimated to contribute to 1000 deaths per year. During the weekends about seven out of every 10 people who go to an emergency department are there because of alcohol. We cannot ignore these statistics. We have to tackle this problem. We have to reduce the harm caused by alcohol which increases crime. 
The alcohol reform package empowers communities. It zeroes in on where the harm caused by alcohol is happening—particularly with regard to youth—to control the supply of alcohol to reduce demand and to limit alcohol-related problems. 
The Minister of Justice has adopted in full or in part 126 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations. This bill will increase the purchase age. It includes a split purchase age. People must be 18 to drink in bars but they must be 20 to buy alcohol from off-licences. We are targeting young people because as the Law Commission reported young people suffer a high and disproportionate level of alcohol-related harm. To have any impact on our binge-drinking culture we need to start with young people by putting measures in place to control both the supply of alcohol to youth and the environment in which they drink. 
The Government has also recognised that different communities have different needs and that those needs are best understood by local people. This bill will empower local communities to address local issues—like the concentration location and opening hours of alcohol outlets—by having a local alcohol policy. Where there is no trading hours policy the maximum national trading hours will be 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for on-licences and for premises with club licences and special licences and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for off-licences. Local communities not people in Wellington are best placed to decide how alcohol licensing should be treated in their own areas. That is why the bill empowers communities to adopt local alcohol policies. 
As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am looking forward to public participation and to hearing the concerns and suggestions the public gives for our consideration. This legislation alone will not turn round our binge-drinking culture but it can help us to develop a more moderate drinking culture through controlling the availability of alcohol and it has a focus on youth. I commend the first reading of this bill to the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I have been looking forward to my opportunity to take a call on the Alcohol Reform Bill. I would like to start my contribution this afternoon by congratulating the Hon Lianne Dalziel on her vision and on her role in referring these issues to the Law Commission and asking it to undertake a comprehensive review of our liquor legislation. I also congratulate the Law Commission on that review and on the very detailed report it brought back to Parliament. I acknowledge my colleague from the Manawatu the Hon Simon Power for his role in maintaining that progress and for bringing this legislation to the House. 
I have been sitting in the House listening very closely throughout the debate. I have heard a lot of not quite opposition to the bill but reluctant support for it. The reason why the support is reluctant is not due to what is in the bill. For the most part the changes this bill makes are positive will be accepted by the community and will be looked on historically as good moves. But they are slim pickings from what the Law Commission suggested we need to do. They are not the total package that Lianne Dalziel set out to achieve when she referred these issues to the commission some years ago. 
After listening to the debate I need to refer to some of the comments that have been made by some members. Nick Smith attacked Lianne Dalziel for her superb passionate and comprehensive contribution in this debate. 
Simon Bridges 
: Angry and boring. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Did a member say it was boring? 
Simon Bridges 
: She managed to be both angry and boring. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Lianne Dalziel’s contribution comes from years of dedication to this issue and from research and looking at the evidence. Yet Nick Smith turned round to her and said that he found her speech ironic because of comments she made in the early 1990s in relation to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. I would think that a member like Lianne Dalziel having spent 20 years in Parliament would be able to learn over her time here and that is clearly what she has done. She may have changed her position on things but that is because she has looked at the evidence developed her position and learnt as she has gone along. Clearly Nick Smith has not. Nick Smith’s position remains rooted in the early 1990s not just on this issue but also on many others. 
I listened closely to Heather Roy because I was interested to see how the ACT Party would be voting on this. She referred to prohibition in this bill. What absolute rubbish. That could not be further from the truth. Prohibition is a failed policy. We know that. This bill goes nowhere near prohibition. She also referred to the 6 o’clock swill. This bill does not revert us back to the 6 o’clock swill either and nobody is suggesting that that is where we should go. She talked about how legislation cannot achieve change then offered virtually nothing in terms of what we should do to achieve change. She had no ideas and no suggestions. She said that we have a problem and society should change it but offered absolutely no initiatives on how we could go about doing that. 
Heather Roy mentioned education. Education feels kind of good because we think that if we educate people then the people—somebody else—will change their behaviour and fix the problem without us having to do anything. Well that is a nice idea but the evidence tells us that education in isolation achieves very very little. It is sad and I wish it was not true but it is a fact. She also talked about parents modelling good behaviour. That is true. There is empirical data that tells us that parents who model good behaviour pass it on to their children. But what should we do for parents who are not modelling good behaviour? Nothing according to the ACT Party; we should just tell them off for being bad people. The fundamental point that the ACT Party does not address in this debate is that with alcohol just like with any other substance we are talking about addiction. Addiction gets in the way of the ACT Party’s mantra of personal choice because addiction takes away one’s ability to have personal choice one’s ability to make rational decisions and basically one’s individual rights. For parents who are not modelling good behaviour we need to have initiatives in place to support them to change their ways. 
This is where I come to some of the things that really are missing from this bill and from this debate. Simon Power referred to a balance. He said that this bill is a balance between the harms and the benefits of alcohol. I think what the Government is trying to achieve is a balance between the evidence that tells us what we should do and the politics. That is the balance this Government is trying to achieve. What we should be doing is passing evidence-based legislation and using evidence-based initiatives to tackle the alcohol problem and curb the harm which is what the Law Commission called on us to do. There are three aspects to dealing with any substance abuse problem: supply reduction demand reduction and harm reduction. This bill focuses on some aspects of supply reduction. 
At the same time we need to look at the whole package of how we achieve demand reduction and harm reduction at the same time. Those two matters are health matters. The way that Parliament operates saddens me a little. It is a necessary thing but that this bill will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee overlooks the fact that the Health Committee could have a huge role in this as well. This is a health matter as well as a justice matter. It is sad that we cannot form some sort of super committee to deal with this bill that has members from the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Health Committee but that is not the way Parliament works. I accept that and that is fine. In terms of health and in terms of demand and harm reduction the Government is going in the opposite direction to the direction it says it is taking us in with this bill. 
We have seen cuts to alcohol and other drug treatment funding. We have seen mental health and alcohol and drug treatment removed from the Government’s priorities. That means that when the Government puts the screws on district health boards and says that it will limit the amount of money they have available they have to find places to cut funding and things to cut. They take their lead from the Government and if something is not a priority to the Government then it is not a priority to the district health boards either. We have seen cuts to drug and alcohol treatment services. They are the types of services that would help us make the changes that the ACT Party is calling for. The Government says that it is interested and concerned about alcohol harm in our community but although it is trying to take us a small way down the right path with this bill it is taking us in completely the opposite direction with its cuts to health funding. 
I will pass on a small anecdote to the House about price because that is something that is missing from this debate. The Government has wussed out and deferred the issue of price until after the election. I went to the supermarket some time ago— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Oh really? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The Minister may be interested to know that I have been to the supermarket several times. I had an epiphany about the price issue when I bought a few bottles of wine. I did not buy them from the alcohol section but from the end of one of the aisles where they were promoted. Those bottles of wine cost $9.99 each. I took a few bottles home we had a barbecue with friends and the bottles were drunk very responsibly. Everybody went home happy and there were no problems the next day. For $30 I was able to provide alcohol for a small function but for that same $30 a teenager or anybody could have consumed all of that wine and got themselves into a real mess for not a lot of money. I thought that OK I appreciate being able to purchase that alcohol for a low price but I wonder what the effect is on the community. 
Government members may laugh about this anecdote but here is the crux of this issue: what is the effect on the community and what is my responsibility as a consumer of alcohol to my community? My community bears the cost of harmful alcohol use and alcohol abuse. Although I might appreciate the convenience and the low cost of low-price alcohol I need to think about the effect on my community. I look forward to the select committee process when many submitters will talk about that and other issues. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 In the recent past there has been the discovery of Stone Age beer jugs from about 10000 BC or thereabouts and the evidence essentially indicates to archaeologists that beer probably preceded bread as a staple consumed by humans. I suppose it goes to show that man cannot live on bread alone but the point I make is that as long as there are people there will be alcohol. I agree with Doug Sellman that alcohol may well be a drug. I agree with him but I say that it will always be with us. 
I am not being fatalistic about this; I accept absolutely that something should be done. I accept there is a range of drinking habits. My father in my entire 34 years on this earth has never ever touched a drop of alcohol. I have offered him a beer a number of times. I have offered him wine. I have probably offered him stronger things but he has never to my knowledge in the last 34 years touched a drop of alcohol. I am not saying that everyone needs to be like that but that that is one valid response to alcohol. Then there are moderate drinkers and of course there are heavy drinkers or as some would say problem drinkers in our society and that is where this bill comes in. 
In recent history we have liberalised our drinking laws. We know that Lianne Dalziel and other members voted for that legislation—and I am not blaming them—and as a country we liberalised the alcohol laws substantially in 1989. I think we all—or certainly most of us other than three ACT members—agree that we went too far and that those changes in the law have led certainly in part to perhaps a culture change and to harmful drinking as a society. In this bill we swing the pendulum back somewhat and we focus on harm. In terms of policy we do not lurch as I think Lianne Dalziel Jim Anderton and members on the left would have us do. There is no point in policy lurches to one extreme and then 20-something years later—or 30 years later I should say—back to another extreme. 
A key word in all this as Simon Power has said is “balance” or being realistic about what can be achieved through the law. 
Sue Moroney 
: Simon if you want to call the Law Commission a “lurch” that’s up to you. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Frankly I do not want to see a set of laws that penalise moderate drinkers—but maybe the member opposite does—the sort of people Iain Lees-Galloway talked about who go to the supermarket and buy some bottles of wine to enjoy at their barbecue with friends. I do not want to see a law like that. 
Sue Moroney 
: How would the Law Commission’s recommendations jeopardise that? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: The member opposite Sue Moroney may want to see that happen but I do not. 
I also acknowledge the comments of those ACT members who will vote against the bill because I agree with them to some extent. We also have to acknowledge that we live in a free society where freedom should be valued where people are hopefully mainly responsible—hopefully mainly have an eye to the serious harm that this drug alcohol can cause—but nevertheless where they are free to drink are free to have beer wine— 
Sue Moroney 
: Free to beat up the wife. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —and even cocktails in bars. Sue Moroney says: “Free to beat up the wife.” That is a disgraceful thing to say because I do not think that any responsible member in this House wants to see that. By arguing for a freer society I do not think anyone in this House is arguing for that sort of thing. We are merely saying that the pendulum in 1989 actually swung far too far in favour of liberal laws and free access—any time anywhere—and a number of other things. 
We want to put the balance back in but in doing that we need to be balanced. We need to make sure that people are not penalised if they are moderate drinkers and that we appreciate and accept that people are free in our country to drink—we are not going to prohibition—and to do so we hope responsibly. 
As someone who is on the Justice and Electoral Committee which will be considering the bill I say in closing that it is an important point that the bill is a starting point; it is not the end point. We will certainly be listening very carefully I am sure to the hundreds of submissions we will get. We want to have sensible submissions and we will want to change the law when good points are made. All select committee processes should be taken seriously but the process on this one perhaps should be even more so. We really will be listening and this bill is seen very much as a starting point. 
Finally I will not go through the specific provisions but one provision—and probably not the most important—concerns what we are doing in relation to ready-to-drink alcohol. We are limiting the amount of alcohol in such drinks and limiting the size of the bottles. I acknowledge John Church a constituent who came and saw me about this some months ago. He came in with a large raspberry-flavoured pre-mixed drink; I think it was called Big Foot. He talked to me very graphically and emotionally about the effect that it was having in his community. He saw young people buying that drink which looked like Fanta. The young people were certainly of an age when Fanta was all they should have been drinking yet they were out on the streets drinking the other. That is just one vivid example of where we are seeking and where we will be effecting change in this law for the better so that the pendulum can come some way back but so that we can still live in a free society where we are not penalising moderate drinkers. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Alcohol Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Boscawen Hide); Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 3 
ACT New Zealand 3 (Calvert Douglas Roy H). 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair David Bennett for dealing with this bill so swiftly and efficiently. The select committee reported back to the House on 2 November and recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I agree with the amendments proposed by the select committee. 
The intent of this bill is simple. This Government is firmly focused on providing greater choice and creating more opportunities for New Zealanders. We want Kiwi workers to succeed. We want them to back themselves and we trust them to make the decisions that best suit their families. We want our businesses to have confidence to take on new staff and we want our employment framework to provide greater certainty while being flexible enough to accommodate the 24/7 nature of the labour market. 
The employment reforms contained in this bill will assist New Zealand and New Zealanders. We know that the 90-day trial works. Kiwi businesses want to take on new employees and they want to grow and invest in this country. In the past too many have been put off by prescriptive personal grievance laws and the fear that if they make one bad hiring decision their business will suffer. The introduction of the trial period last year has made a huge difference to small businesses and to workers looking for someone to give them a chance in a new job. 
This is not a new idea. Countries all over the world have similar legislation in place; more often than not it is mandatory and the trial period is much longer than 90 days. It works well and that is why this bill proposes that it be extended to all employers. 
I have heard plenty of ideological opposition to this bill and I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is ensuring that people who want to work are given every opportunity to get a job. All they want is a chance and we know that employers want to offer that chance. We are giving them the confidence they need in order to do so. 
This bill also addresses concerns with the existing provisions for unions to access workplaces. It will provide clarity to employers and employees on communications while collective bargaining is under way and it will improve the operation of the institutions set up to help resolve employment relationship problems including the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. It makes changes to the personal grievance system to give greater confidence to employers and employees that they will be given a fair go. Finally the bill will strengthen the ability of labour inspectors to improve compliance with employment legislation and ensure that the majority of employers who comply with this legislation are not disadvantaged by doing so. 
The select committee has given thorough consideration to the issues raised by submitters and has recommended some practical amendments to the bill. These amendments have been accepted. 
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) progresses our election promise to make changes to union access provisions. The bill sets out that union access to workplaces is conditional on the consent of the employer which may not be unreasonably withheld. It also sets out a minimum process for obtaining this consent. The committee has recommended clarifying the time frame within which an employer must respond to a union representative’s request to enter a workplace. This change makes it clear that an employer must respond to a request as soon as practicable but no later than the working day after the request is received. If employers withhold their consent they must provide the reason for declining this request no later than the working day after they gave the union their decision. This provides a maximum time frame of 2 working days for considering a request and providing written reasons. This change provides clarity to both unions and employers about what their rights and obligations are when dealing with a request for a union representative to enter a workplace. 
The committee has recommended changes to the bill around early mediation services. I understand that a number of submitters were concerned that the bill would mean that people would not have access to representatives during mediation. This was certainly not the intent of the original bill. The change is intended to highlight that one of the options available to parties to resolve an employment relationship problem is the use of mediation services without having representatives present. This recognises that in some instances a problem may more easily be resolved by the parties themselves with the assistance of a mediator. It also provides flexibility as parties will continue to be able to access mediation with a legal representative if they believe that this is the best way to resolve their problem. 
The committee has also recommended a small number of changes that will clarify the intent of the bill and ensure that employees and employers are clear about what the changes mean. This includes removing doubt about the status of an unsigned employment agreement and providing that employees are able to get a copy of the employment agreement held by their employer. The changes mean that the Employment Relations Authority cannot issue freezing or search orders and that the authority should consider whether mediation is appropriate when a labour inspector brings an issue to the authority relating to minimum entitlements. The committee also recommended that one of the new tools given to labour inspectors improvement notices cannot be issued over the Christmas break. 
These are all sensible recommendations and I thank the committee for the thorough consideration it gave to the bill. I also thank the hundreds of submitters who took the time to make a submission on this bill. 
This bill improves the overall efficiency of the employment relations legislation. It provides for greater certainty and flexibility and it improves the operation of the Employment Relations Authority ensuring clarity for employers employees and unions in their dealings with each other. It will also discourage poor employment practices and increase employment opportunities. These moderate changes will improve confidence reduce costs and promote business growth whilst still ensuring fairness to both employees and employers. I commend this bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 The Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is another sock in the eye for Kiwi wage earners and salary earners. It is part of a raft of unfair and unjustified workplace laws that remove some of the most basic of rights that workers have enjoyed for many many years. This Government has turned its back on Kiwi workers and their families. Let us not forget that they are bearing the brunt of the GST increases; the miserly tax increase for the lowest paid nowhere near compensates for increased costs. There is no investment in jobs or skills. There is no plan. The majority response from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and let us be clear about what that means; it means the National and the ACT Party members—demonstrates that this Government is not prepared to listen to anyone who disagrees with it. 
The bill started badly when National used its party conference to announce the extension of the 90-day “no rights” law to all workplaces and the restriction of union access rights because it had nothing else to say at that conference. The Government has no plan to stop New Zealand drifting further and further behind Australia. Then the Government went further by pushing this and the Holidays Amendment Bill through the fast-track parliamentary process. The public was given only 3 weeks to make submissions on both bills—both substantive bills with major changes. Large numbers of submissions were ignored. Despite this I want to thank the submitters all 8000 of them—the Minister of Labour referred to hundreds of submitters but there were 8000 of them—who went to the trouble to tell the committee and this Government what they thought of this lousy bill. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government has completely ignored many of those submissions and the protests of those who opposed the changes in this bill and the fact that only minor and technical changes were being suggested. 
However I am used to what National does. I have been here a while now with National in Government but a press release states that shopworker Margaret Dornan “… is gutted that Parliament has ignored her submission on the employment law changes being debated in Parliament this afternoon. Margaret said that she and several other members of the National Distribution Union (NDU) wrote personal submissions and came along in person to tell their stories to MPs at the select committee.” 
Carol Beaumont 
: They did. Fantastic job. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: They did a fantastic job. It is not an easy thing for an ordinary low-paid worker to do. I think Margaret speaks for a lot of workers who feel the same way—the thousands who made submissions and the more than 22000 workers who went to meetings and rallies up and down the country to oppose this awful bill. 
What was clearly laid out in the select committee—and we will hear more about it during the debate on this bill—was the disdain the National Government has for working people. It is quite happy to be the puppet of an American corporation and sell out the labour rights of a major group of workers and it is quite happy to rush through the House legislation that removes rights such a meals and rest breaks because of the little problem with air traffic controllers. But the Government has ignored thousands of submissions and thousands of workers protesting in our country. 
I want to talk about two areas of the bill in particular as there will be more time to talk about other things during the Committee stage. The first one is union access. There was no clear evidence before this bill was introduced that the issue of access was a problem. There was no problem to be addressed there. The Minister’s own department said there was not a problem and employers said there was not a problem. We at the select committee heard no evidence of problems. The only reason for change is ideology and it is supported by I think a very small number of employers who want to make it as difficult as possible for workers to have access to their unions at work. 
It is interesting that the Minister appears to have originally proposed a more watered-down access change. In an 11 August 2010 Cabinet paper the Minister proposed to exclude the consent requirements if a union representative was entering the workplace to deal with matters concerning the health and safety of union members. That never made it into the bill passed through Cabinet. The paper said that it was to ensure that the risks to the health and safety of people in the workplace could be dealt with appropriately. As I said the bill omits any of this so I would like to know whether the Government now believes it is OK to prevent matters concerning the health and safety of people in the workplace being responded to appropriately. 
I acknowledge that the select committee made a small improvement to the union access provisions by cutting down from 4 days to 2 days the time allowed for employers to provide a response to a request and—if consent is withheld—the reasons for withholding consent. But the legislation will still enable employers to say no and give a reason. The union representative will then have to challenge that reason. That could take weeks and even months and it will require legal challenges. This will be an absolute gift for lawyers. 
The second area I want to talk about is the extension of the 90-day trial period. Once again we are left wondering why the Government decide to extend this to all workplaces when its own research on the existing provisions for workplaces of 20 or fewer employees is far from convincing about the benefits. There was no demand that I am aware of for the extension of this law to all workplaces apart from the ACT Party. Even as late as June 2010 the Minister was proposing it be extended to medium-sized enterprises with 50 workers or fewer but the Minister got rolled in Cabinet and rolled by the ACT Party. That is very worrying. Today in the House I asked the Minister of Labour how she could be confident that the 90-day trial period scheme would improve productivity and skills given we have heard of an example today where a skilled chef in Timaru was fired under the scheme for using too much sauce and aioli. For goodness’ sake! The Minister replied—I thought very flippantly—“Quite easily.” which shows an ignorance of the issues that we face in this country around productivity and future skill shortages. I thought skilled chefs were in demand; I thought John Key was trying to keep skilled workers in New Zealand. 
As we have debated the extension of the 90-day “no rights” legislation I have asked the Minister quite a lot of questions to try to understand what she really thinks the rights of workers if any are in this situation. Firstly we had the TradeMe jobs with 90-day trial periods advertised as a pre-requirement. The Minister kept insisting that 90-day trial periods are voluntary and if workers did not want a trial period they did not have to have one—in other words if they do not want it they do not get the job. That is not so for workers sent by Work and Income to do a job. The Minister for Social Development and Employment confirmed that a job with a 90-day trial period was treated the same as any other job. The worker does not have the right to turn a job down because it has a trial period and in fact if the worker did turn it down he or she would be punished with a stand-down. I then tried to understand what the Minister believes the obligations of good faith are for a worker employed under a 90-day trial period but it seems the Minister really does not understand those obligations and in fact had questions about that as well. We have heard the answers and the advice that the employer would have to be responsive communicative and blah-blah-blah but the bottom line is that there is no remedy available to workers in relation to breaches of good faith in a 90-day dismissal situation. They still lose their job they still have the stain on their record they still have their confidence whacked and they still have to explain to the next employer what happened at their last place of employment. 
As I said at the beginning this bill has many other provisions that I will give more attention to in the Committee stage. But there is nothing in this bill that will build more productive New Zealand workplaces reduce unemployment or help to bridge the income gap with Australia. The Government has chosen instead the low and cheap route of undermining the ability of Kiwi wage and salary earners to improve their wages and conditions. The only possible message for Kiwi workers from this legislation is that the Government does not care about them their families their issues or their communities. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). It is an excellent bill; I congratulate the Minister of Labour. 
This bill provides flexibility and greater choice and ensures a balance of fairness for both employers and employees. It amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to make changes in a number of areas which include union access to workplaces communications with employees during collective bargaining personal grievances employment institutions and the labour inspectors’ role and enforcement powers. 
I reinforce that the changes made to this bill are both pragmatic and practical for the issues currently facing employers and employees. The bill will result in a reduction in compliance costs give businesses more confidence to grow and take on new staff help resolve workplace disputes faster and provide choices for employees and employers. 
I will talk a little about union access to workplaces. The rules for union access will be changing so that any access will require the consent of the employer. Importantly consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) whose members employ over 300000 people supported these changes. Its members said that the current law is problematic that when union access problems arise they are serious and there is no practical recourse for the employer. They said the current recourse for a breach of good faith in the Employment Relations Authority occurred so long after the incident happened that it was of little use. They certainly supported this aspect of the bill. 
The bill also clarifies that an employer may communicate directly with employees while bargaining for a collective employment agreement is under way provided that the communications are consistent with the duty of good faith. 
I will also speak about the extension of the 90-day trial period to all businesses in respect of the economic climate that has prevailed. The Government is working hard to lift the long-term performance of the economy create more jobs raise living standards and deliver world-class public services for Kiwi families. New jobs will not be created unless a business has the confidence that it can expand and diversify. The 90-day trial period has encouraged employers to take on new staff and to give people who do not have a work record—such as students migrants and women returning to the workforce—a chance to enter the workforce. 
The extension of the 90-day trial period to all businesses is in fact very moderate as the Minister has outlined in her speech. Almost every other country in the OECD has a trial period for new employees. In many countries the trial period is much longer than our 90-day trial period; it can be up to 12 months in some cases. This provision is all about giving businesses the increased confidence to hire new employees and giving many more people a chance to enter the job market. 
The Hospitality Association of New Zealand told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the hospitality industry is a first employer of many young workers and that first employment often brings with it the most risk and uncertainty for an employer. The association considered that the bill will introduce a useful measure of certainty and consolidate that employment relationship to make it work. 
In a survey that was done about the 90-day trial period 40 percent of employers who hired someone on the trial period said it was unlikely that they would have taken on a new employee without that trial period. The vast majority of people employed under the trial period—74 percent in fact—have remained employed. This is extremely positive. It is hardly the fire-at-will situation that members opposite accuse the 90-day trial period of being. 
This bill is positive for employers and employees. It is a win-win and I commend it to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I rise with a heavy heart as we commence the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is unfair unjustified unnecessary and unbalanced. I will repeat that: unfair unjustified unnecessary and unbalanced. This amendment bill is contrary to the objective of the Employment Relations Act which is meant to be about productive employment relations. This bill will worsen employment relations. The objective of the Act is good-faith behaviour. Well we will not see a lot of that behaviour in some cases. 
Also the Act recognises the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships. Listening to that side of the House one would think employment was a level playing field and that it was just like any other contract like buying and selling a product. The difference of course is that it is about people. It is about people who have relationships in the workplace that need to be fostered and need to be respectful in order for us to achieve good outcomes. This bill flies in the face of that. 
It has been the history of this country that for many decades employment rights improved. Things got better not worse. We all expected that our children and our grandchildren would get better wages and have better conditions of work than we had. That has been undermined significantly in recent times and this legislation is just another nail in the coffin. We are going backwards—back to the future. This legislation has the hallmarks of many aspects of the Employment Contracts Act. It is another attack from a list of many that this Government has put in place in 2 years. It makes our workplaces less fair less safe and it will lead to worse wages and conditions. It will certainly see our workplaces become less respectful places. For many workers as I know from my experience as a union official being respected at work and being treated with respect is a really important part of what workers want. Being sacked without reason and without redress is not respectful. 
This bill covers a number of things: it provides for the extension of the 90-day fire-at-will provision to all employers it restricts union access to the workplace and it has a range of changes in relation to the personal grievance system. It has some changes about employment institutions and actually some positive changes about labour inspector roles. I will focus on a couple of those changes. I will focus on the access provisions the 90-day no-rights provisions and reinstatement as a primary remedy. 
My colleague Darien Fenton explained that restrictions on union access will have negative consequences. I reinforce the point that there was no need for this change. The regulatory impact statement states: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship …”. Members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee if they are honest about this will know that just about every employer that presented submissions—they were primarily larger employers or associations—recognised that unions used the access provisions properly and in accord with the current constraints in the Employment Relations Act. The current provisions say that the access provisions have to be used at a reasonable time in a reasonable way taking account of security and health and safety provisions. They already exist. So what is the need for this change? What it boils down to is that this legislation will provide roadblocks to unions accessing their members at the workplace. Irrespective of whether it is a health and safety matter or a matter of organising for collective bargaining it will provide the worst employers with a way to drag out the right of access and that will have negative consequences. 
I also reinforce the point about health and safety. As Ms Fenton said it was originally felt that the health and safety element should be left out of the changes. If access provisions are going to be changed I agree that the right of entry in relation to health and safety should be left out. I say to members opposite—I asked about this in the select committee—that if workers who are injured or killed at work were trying to get their union access to come and check out the health and safety problem those members will have that on their conscience because frankly it is unreasonable that people cannot access their union official when they need to if there is a health and safety problem. 
The whole 90-day fire-at-will provision is full of holes. Extending it to all workplaces is a sop to the right and the use of words such as “choice” is just ridiculous. In a high unemployment situation such as we have now there is no real choice. 
Allan Peachey 
: The socialists think choice is ridiculous! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Mr Peachey knows that a “take it or leave it” job offer is not a choice in a situation of high unemployment. Would a young worker or migrant worker argue the toss with an employer about this? No they would not so they do not have a real choice. 
A person being sacked without reason or redress has implications not only for that worker; many people have talked about the fact that it will have implications for other workers in that workplace. If they see somebody unfairly treated like that it will undermine trust. People will become resentful and angry about that sort of treatment. In the past before the current personal grievance provisions there were often wildcat strikes over the fact that people were unfairly treated and unfairly dismissed. If workers do not have the right to take personal grievances I expect those strikes may well happen in the future as well. 
Frankly just think about how the worker who is dismissed unfairly would feel how the worker who is dismissed without reason or recourse would feel. Imagine if your daughter or your nephew or your grandchild came home to say that the boss just sacked them. When you ask why they reply that they do not know as they were not told. Imagine how you would feel; I bet you would feel angry— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Sorry. What if that worker went to get another job and the new employer asked why they had left the last job and being truthful the person replied that they had been dismissed. A potential employer may ask why the person was dismissed. That is a perfectly reasonable question. If the person says “I don’t know.” do members opposite think that person will get that job? This bill will cause a whole lot of absolutely unfair outcomes. 
The issue of reinstatement as a primary remedy is an important one. It is quite a small-scale issue. In fact in 2007 there were only 14 reinstatements; in 2008 there were seven and in 2009 there were eight. But it is important that that provision is there; it is important to see whether in the first instance a worker can be restored to the situation he or she was in prior to an unfair act. It is a particularly important protection for union delegates and other union activists. 
The combined effect of these changes will mean that the vulnerable workers will be most disadvantaged. Women workers go in and out of the workplace more often so they will face 90 days’ employment with no rights more frequently. Young workers and many people entering the workforce for the first time know their rights less well and are often less confident and less able to negotiate issues like 90 days with no rights. 
It will be more difficult for workers to improve their wages and conditions. Potentially there will be increased disputation. But also sadly these changes will mean that the attempt to get our workplaces on to a more modern footing to have the high-trust highly productive workplaces that this country needs to lift its economic performance and to close the wage gap with Australia will be under threat as a result. We cannot have high-trust highly productive workplaces when people have the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over them. 
During the Committee stage I will have much more time to deal with specific points but I thank the nearly 8000 submitters and the Department of Labour officials. The officials were put under enormous pressure because of yet again another rushed process by this Government. They did a very good job under great pressure of providing us with the advice we needed. Overwhelmingly the submitters did not support this legislation. 
In conclusion I just want to say we had a submission from a 14-year-old woman. I do not think anyone in that room if they were honest could say they did not feel how strongly she was concerned about what it would be like for young workers in workplaces who face unfair dismissal. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is very sad that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did not come back with a strong report rejecting the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and that the majority of the select committee did not listen and take in the many representations from individual workers and as has just been mentioned unions and community organisations all of whom were opposed to the bill. Sure some submissions were in favour of the bill but they were few and far between. Some of them made good points but the overwhelming feeling of the submissions was against this bill because it takes away fundamental union rights. If members want to read the detail of that they can read the Green and Labour Party minority report which explains the problems with the bill. 
I will go over the fundamental union rights that have been taken away. One of the most fundamental rights was the right of members of the union to talk to union officials in the place where they work. That is the question of union access. The present system operates pretty well. We heard all the submissions and we questioned employer representatives. There was not much evidence at all that there was any significant disruption in the workplace under the present system of union access which requires that access to be at reasonable times and not to be overly disruptive of the workflow etc. 
There were very few complaints about the present system before this bill. This bill puts unions at a big disadvantage. It has been indicated that there were some improvements in relation to the delays but unions can still be delayed up to a couple of days in terms of getting into a job site. Various union representatives explained to the select committee their practice in visiting worksites. A lot of them have to cover a lot of worksites in a day and they have to be able to vary the worksites a bit. If say they have 10 worksites to cover in a day and you have to spend a bit more time at one worksite because there is a bit of a health and safety problem you may have to phone up the next worksite and say— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is including me. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am very sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. The union official would phone up the employer at the next worksite and say: “Look I was going to come at around 8 o’clock. I’ve got to put that out to 10 o’clock. I’ve got a bit of a problem here.” That flexibility is built into the system whereby the employer will cooperate with changing times and all the rest of it. Now an employer who does not want the union to be on the job or who wants to weaken the union will be able to put off that visit for a couple of days muck around with the time and make it much more difficult for the union to operate. 
As the previous speaker said there might be very important immediate issues such as health and safety issues that require attention although the employer might say that an issue is not a health and safety issue. I have been in a situation like that myself. At one point I was working in a motor factory and there was a problem with fumes coming into the manufacturing section where we were making seats. The employer did not think that fumes were coming in. We did. We were being affected by the fumes and we took a form of union action against that. One can see that there is not necessarily agreement between the employer and union on whether there is actually a health and safety issue. So there has to be a flexible system for union access. 
The next basic right undermined by this bill is the right to stay in one’s job—that is to stay in employment. That right is threatened by the 90-day trial period provision being extended to all workers. The basic thing about staying in a job is having the right not to be dismissed without good cause and without a reason being given. If people can be sacked at will within the first 90 days of their employment without a reason being given as this bill provides for they naturally feel very hurt particularly if they do not think there is a good reason but that it is just that they are being picked on and they have not had a fair go. That grievance carries on in the person’s emotions and feelings and all the rest of it for a long time if they lose their job unjustly under the 90-day provision. They also lose a sense of power. There is a feeling of powerlessness and they feel that for those 90 days their future is at the whim of the employer. This particularly affects people who are coming in under the 90-day trial period provision. Those people will often be the more powerless workers—the marginalised workers some younger people and workers who have been unemployed and who find it more difficult to get a job. They already feel powerless and will feel even more powerless under this provision. 
The other thing I want to mention which has not been recognised sufficiently by this Parliament is the effort that people sometimes go to to get a job. Migrants may go from one side of the world to the other and it costs them a lot. They may shift their family or have to divide their family for a while because the mother or father has to go ahead and get the job and the rest of the family comes later. Those migrants may have been unemployed say in Auckland and may have to move down to the Waikato Whanganui or somewhere else to get a job on a farm. They take their family set their children up at a school and then 75 days later they can be just sacked without any reason. 
Just today I received the case of Cheryl and Bruce who had shifted to be a herd manager and a relief milker on a farm. They had tried to defend a migrant worker who was working on the same farm and the employer told them to get lost that they had lost their jobs. There was no reason for the dismissal in terms of their work their politeness or anything else; the employer just did not want anyone to dissent on any matter. Now they have all sorts of problems with their kids being at a local school. They have to drive their kids 40 minutes each way to school each day because the family had to shift out from the farm and they have all the rest of the problems associated with the 90-day provision. The idea that the provision is voluntary and that people do not have to agree to it is a bit of a joke particularly in the situation now where we have growing unemployment. If people want a job then they have to accept the 90-day provision in this bill. 
This bill also weakens unions in the sense that there is a dissection of the workforce who are on a particular job. Workers who have been employed for fewer than 90 days will feel reluctant to criticise anything that happens in the workplace for fear of losing their jobs. Those workers will not want to join the union particularly if the union is the subject of some contention with the employer because they could be seen as people who might stand up for their rights or who might be a bit more stroppy than others in the workforce. The employer might want to send them down the road in favour of a more compliant person and there are plenty of examples of that happening. 
The idea that more jobs are available through the 90-day provision has not been proved either. In fact we get a less efficient workforce if employers can hire people for just 90 days and then get rid of them because there will be less training as those workers will be treated as temporary labour. 
Another issue dealt with in the Labour Party and Green Party minority report is the personal grievance situation. People can be sacked and reinstatement is not a primary remedy. So if an employer wants to get rid of a union delegate the employer might just kick that person down the road as he or she will not be able to come back to the job. That might cost the employer a bit at the Employment Court but the employer can intimidate the rest of the workforce by getting rid of the lead union delegate. That is the sort of thing that will happen if we do not reinstate people. 
Good-faith bargaining is also undermined by this provision which allows employers to swamp the workers with their side of the story when there is some contention over say an employment contract. The union does not have the ability to contact all the shareholders to swamp them with the workers’ side of an employment dispute between unions and employers so it is a very one-sided provision. It will undermine good-faith bargaining between employers and unions which is the heart of good unionism. 
Altogether this is a very bad bill. There have been huge demonstrations around the country against it. I along with Carol Beaumont was at the one in Auckland which thousands of people attended. The unions are more active now than they have been for many years. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Contrary to what the previous speaker Keith Locke has just said the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very good bill and the ACT Party will be supporting it. The bill extends the 90-day trial period currently permitted for employers with 20 or fewer employees to employers of any size which is exactly as it should be. There should be a level playing field in the market place. 
The bill also makes changes to union access to workplaces communications with employees during collective bargaining and the test for justifiable dismissal or an action by an employer. It actually rectifies several problems that have emerged since the 90-day trial period was introduced. In fact ACT would have been very happy to have a significantly longer trial period. We would have been very happy to have it set at 6 months— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why not permanently? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: —or permanently. I like the way Carol Beaumont is thinking. That would be a very good solution to the problem. 
Employers have noted that the situation is much better. They have the ability to trial employees and employees also have the ability—it is not one-sided—to try out a job that they might not be very certain in their minds about taking on in the first instance. ACT supports this bill. We will support the 90-day period and as I said we would be happy for it to be a bit longer. But 90 days is certainly better than nothing at all. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Here is a quote from the Labour Party: “Choice is ridiculous.” That is what one of those members said—choice is ridiculous. 
Hon Member 
: No it was “Joyce is ridiculous.” 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no it could not have been that. Choice is ridiculous. Listen to how those words roll off the top of their tongues. Choice is ridiculous. Do members know why Labour members say that? It is because of that old thing they believe in that comes from the early 1920s—in fact earlier than that. It comes from the manifesto of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those members really do believe that they are more with-it and more intelligent than the poor old worker out in the field. They will make the choice as to whether the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is good or bad for workers. 
Here is something else to ponder. Why is it that the union representative never goes out on strike with the workers? 
Allan Peachey 
: You mean they still get paid? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They still get paid! A classic example of this occurred during the mining strike on the West Coast not so long ago. The miners’ union was receiving money— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is on the wrong bill. The strike bill was debated last night. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am listening to the member; I will make a determination. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is about choice. The 90-day bill is about choice the access issue is about choice and that is why I was gobsmacked to hear the comments of the Labour Party members Carol Beaumont and Darien Fenton who apparently were both good union representatives in their day—in their day. But that day has gone and we have those members harking back to the good old days when the union ran everything. It was as my father used to say a closed shop. 
What is wrong with choice? There is nothing wrong with choice. People 2 years ago made a choice and they voted for change. The amazing thing about this debate is that if we were to close our eyes and listen to the so-called left it would be as if we were back in 1951. But those battles have been won and lost; they have been fought they have been won and they have been lost. Those members cry about workers’ rights the 90-day bill and union access to workplaces. We hear the emotion of Carol Beaumont when she says that the change to union access to workers could lead to someone dying. 
Carol Beaumont 
: It could do. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: For goodness’ sake! In 100 years of industrial law no one—no one—has died because of that. No one has died through lack of access to a union representative—not once not twice not three times. And this is 2011 not 1951. 
This legislation is part of our programme to get the country back working to get the country back on the road to economic prosperity which is something that was absolutely lacking during the 9 years of the Labour Government. The outdated policies of the left-wing Government were absolutely lacking in that. Well it thought it was a left-wing Government but it was not. 
I enjoyed my time on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I give big raps to David Bennett the chairman of that committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am appalled by the contribution of the member who has just resumed his seat Tau Henare on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not think it was even a contribution. It was shocking stuff. That member is absolutely languishing in the past. 
Hone Harawira 
: Languishing languishing. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly and I know that that Maori Party member will be taking his call soon—probably not tonight but at the very next time that this bill is debated. Tau Henare’s speech was absolutely shocking stuff. 
How many submitters were at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee? 
Sue Moroney 
: 8000. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Eight thousand submitters said that this bill is ridiculous. I want to go back to what Carol Beaumont said earlier and I will use young people as an example. What will it do for young people’s self-esteem when they are sacked from their first job and they have to go home and say they have been sacked? What will it do to those young people? It will absolutely knock their confidence. Nicky Wagner is scowling over there. What is wrong with someone being told the reason? It is absolutely appalling. 
We heard the previous speaker talking about choice. Labour believes in choice. Where is the choice with the 90-day “sack-at-will” legislation? Workers have to take it or leave it. That is the workers’ choice. Workers do not have the choice of saying they do not want to be sacked for no reason. They cannot say they want the protection of being told that they are not performing so they that can fix it. 
Allan Peachey 
: Could you sit down so I can speak before 6 o’clock? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not think so. Where is the choice in the legislation? The choice for a new person in a job is to take it or leave it and that is utterly appalling. 
I think that members Mr Assistant Speaker Roy and everyone in this House will reflect on my final words this evening. As they leave this House they will think: “Where is the choice in this bill?” Would that be right? When this bill is next debated I will finish my speech. I think this bill is an absolutely shocking indictment in relation to the dignity of workers in this country. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.