Volume 682 Week 17 - Wednesday 25 July 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 682 Week 17 - Wednesday 25 July 2012 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3883. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 25 July 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Visitors 
Zimbabwe—Prime Minister and Minister of State 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai MP Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair and that the Hon Jameson Timba Minister of State and the delegation in the Speaker’s gallery also be welcomed. 
The Rt Hon Morgan Tsvangirai accompanied by the Minister for Primary Industries entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Questions to Ministers 
Statutory Holidays—Waitangi Day and Anzac Day 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “My expectations are that this will be a busy hard three years’ work and we will need to deliver results for New Zealanders”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 On this side of the House yes and on the other side of the House I am sure that David Cunliffe is very busy. He sees it as 3 years of hard work and is sure it will deliver a result. 
David Shearer 
: Will he and his caucus deliver results for hard-working New Zealanders by supporting David Clark’s bill to have a day off on the Monday when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with Tourism Industry Association chief executive officer Martin Snedden who said “Creating long weekends will boost New Zealand’s economy in relevant years by stimulating domestic tourism.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with Judith Collins that having a public holiday the following Monday undermines Anzac Day and Waitangi Day commemorations? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the Minister makes a very fair point. 
David Shearer 
: Does he understand that hard-working New Zealanders think it is fair to have a holiday on the Monday when the public holiday falls on a Sunday? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I understand the concerns New Zealanders might have. I also understand the issues at stake. There are many people who would feel very very strongly that Mondayisation would be taking away potentially from those very very significant days. Let us say this—[ 
Interruption 
] They are baying like a bunch of banshees but you had 9 years in Government and you did not do anything about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I call Leader of the Opposition I say that the Speaker did not have the last 9 years in Government. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his last answer could he answer how Christmas Day in 2010 was undermined by having a holiday the following week; and on that basis would he consider taking Monday away when Christmas Day falls on a weekend? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can understand why David Shearer is focused on Christmas Day because that is the only day that David Cunliffe takes off from plotting. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think some attempt to address the question should be made. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I gave it my best shot. If one looks at the issue of Mondayisation yes there will always be a range of views. But I think there are many New Zealanders who would say that when it comes to Waitangi Day and Anzac Day they are very significant peculiar days to New Zealand and therefore the honouring of those days when they occur makes sense. I know the Labour Party members want to take a holiday; it is pretty obvious from the amount of work they do not do. And good news: you are in for a lot longer holiday than you are planning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I hope the Speaker is not in for a lot longer holiday than he is planning. [ 
Interruption 
] Enough said. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Government Policy 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “we don’t favour one group over another”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full quote which I made at the National Party conference about the National Party which was “We have tolerance and respect for all New Zealanders and we don’t favour one group over another.” Although it is not part of my ministerial responsibility the point I was making is that we are a broad church party and not aligned to a particular interest group such as unions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is not paying the brokerage fees of retail investors in the asset sales favouring the roughly 5 percent of New Zealanders whom Treasury expects to directly buy shares over the 95 percent of New Zealanders who are not expected to buy shares? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has a number of wide-ranging objectives in terms of the mixed-ownership model programme. One of those is to see as widespread ownership as possible by as many New Zealanders as possible—for it to be as accessible as possible. I need to check the point about whether we are paying brokerage fees. I would be very surprised if we were doing that. We certainly have a loyalty bonus aimed at those New Zealanders if that is what the member means. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Well is he aware that there is $56 million in the Budget primarily to pay the brokerage fees to the selling syndicate; and why is it fair for all taxpayers to cover the brokerage fees of the 5 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would need to check that matter. I am sure the member is probably incorrect in the assumption he is making. If he wants a detailed answer he would be better to put down a question to the Minister responsible. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Government claim that asset sales are about mum and dad investors when Treasury’s numbers show that in fact 95 percent of mums and dads would end up subsidising the 5 percent who can afford to buy shares? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I am not sure Treasury’s advice does show that. In fact I would reject that. I draw the attention of the member to the following which is that of the last 219 initial public offerings that we looked at the Government of the day gave retail incentives in 110 of them and loyalty bonuses in 84. It is quite a widespread technique used everywhere. This member seems I have got to say to be quite incredible. Having spent the last year berating me for wanting to sell shares theoretically to foreigners which is not what I want to do he is now berating me for making sure I sell them to New Zealanders. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Government claim that asset sales would improve electricity market competition when the electricity provided by the publicly owned power companies is already 12 percent cheaper than that from the private providers and privatisation would remove that anchor on the market and hence we would likely see increased power prices? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Like many of the numbers that the member quotes those are just rubbish. But if we go back to the broader issue what really drives power prices is the structure of the electricity industry—something that this Government has reformed. That is why under the previous Labour Government power prices went up 72 percent while those members sat on their hands and under this Government they have gone up 14 percent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Government claim that asset sales would improve electricity market competition when the restructuring that he just referred to was possible only because the energy companies were State-owned enterprises and once they are made into mixed-ownership model companies the Government will lose the capacity to perform exactly that kind of restructuring where it moves assets around? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Competition in a market is competition amongst all participants. What the member has just said is absolute rubbish. He is saying that competition exists because we happen currently as a country to 100 percent own Meridian Energy Mighty River Power and Genesis but he does not count competition that might be provided by Contact Energy of which the Government has no ownership. That is a ridiculous argument. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Government claim that asset sales are about deepening New Zealand capital markets and getting Kiwis involved in the share market and then go and decide to list those companies on the Australian stock exchange; is it because more Kiwis are leaving than ever before for Australia under his administration? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well a cynic might say it is in case the member moves back. The Government has not made a decision yet about whether the companies will be listed on the ASX. But as I have said publicly before the advice is that that may be the right thing to do not because we will see a lot of trading on the ASX—eight of the top 10 New Zealand companies are listed on the New Zealand exchange and the ASX and the vast bulk of the trading in those companies takes place on the New Zealand exchange—but because the mandate of some Australian fund managers that buy shares on behalf of New Zealanders as well as others requires them to be listed on the ASX. Of course we can take that opportunity away but again we would take away some of the price competitiveness that others might enjoy if they bought those shares. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Government has failed to convince New Zealanders of the arguments around asset sales as shown by every major opinion poll is that because the Government actually does not have very good reasons and his approach now is to say “Rubbish!” to anyone who disagrees with him and to tell the people of New Zealand: “We are simply going to force it down your throat.” in a Muldoonist way just like previous National Governments have? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are many analogies one could draw with me but Muldoon is probably not one of them. Let me run the maths past the member. There were a touch over a million New Zealanders who voted for the National Party at the most recent general election where front and centre stage was this policy and last weekend 79 protestors turned up to oppose it. And 1 million is greater than 79. If the member cared enough about it he would have gone out in the rain and protested but he was tucked up in his warm insulated—thanks to the National Government—house reading some leftie magazine he enjoys instead of being out there protesting with the other 79. 
Housing Affordability and Social Housing—Productivity Commission Report 
3. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on housing affordability? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Housing affordability is important for fairness and for allocation of capital in the economy. The Productivity Commission released a report on housing affordability that found that housing in New Zealand has become increasingly unaffordable over the past decade. Real house prices almost doubled between 2001 and 2007. In particular it found that there is almost no building of houses that are affordable for New Zealanders in the lowest quartile of incomes. The commission found that this affects communities and puts pressures on the Government’s fiscal position because the Government has very large subsidies to the cost of housing. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What are some of the factors behind housing affordability issues in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Productivity Commission found that the price of housing has been driven up by a combination of rising demand and unresponsive supply. Housing prices boomed in the 2000s backed by large Government transfers strong population growth and favourable terms of trade but the supply of housing has been unable to keep up with demand. We agree with the Productivity Commission’s view that urban planning has played a critical role in constraining the supply of land and constraining the opportunity for higher-density development within cities. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Why does the Government regard the issue of housing affordability as a priority? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If we left the situation as we inherited it from the previous Government housing would be too expensive for young lower-income and migrant New Zealanders who would find themselves locked out of the housing market and locked into poor and low-quality housing. This Government made it the first inquiry of the Productivity Commission when it was set up and intends to follow through by working with local government and with the planning and development industry to improve housing affordability. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: How confident is the Minister in the Social Housing Unit when the Productivity Commission report on affordable housing states: “Although the formal objectives of the SHU are clear its structure as a semi-autonomous body leaves room for unclear priorities mixed purposes and misaligned accountabilities.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We appreciate the advice of the Productivity Commission. The Social Housing Unit is a very early attempt to undo the substantial mess left in social housing by the previous Labour Government with around about $5 billion worth of houses in poor condition the wrong size and in the wrong place. They are not enabling the taxpayer to help those New Zealanders who are in serious housing need and need assistance. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about how confident the Minister was about those issues. I do not think he answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That type of question asks for an opinion and the Minister gave his opinion. He said that the views of the Productivity Commission were very valuable to the Government. Therefore obviously it takes the views quite seriously. When asking for an opinion like that there is no particular answer to that kind of question. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he appreciate the advice of the chair of the Productivity Commission who said recently that the Government’s budget for social housing aimed at making housing affordable for low-income New Zealanders is well short of the mark and does not meet current need and that expanding the role of social housing is at the heart of addressing affordability? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I certainly do not agree with the last remark because actually the heart of housing affordability is enabling all New Zealanders not just that small minority who are in significant housing need. But in respect of the other remarks that the commissioner has made yes we broadly agree with them. I think even the member has made some useful comments herself in the last few weeks to the effect that if we want a proper allocation of capital in the economy if we want to be more effective in the way that we assist New Zealanders with housing we need to rethink the current models and that is what we are doing. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What issues is the Government considering in preparing its response to the Productivity Commission’s report on housing affordability? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is looking at all the issues raised by the Productivity Commission which include land supply resource and building consenting development contributions liability rules cost of building materials and industry structure. Actually to that we would add the fiscal costs to the Government which include all of the housing subsidies the implicit subsidy in the ownership of $15 billion worth of Housing New Zealand Corporation assets and the significant transfers through Working for Families and other schemes which are there partly to help New Zealand households meet the excessive cost of housing. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the Minister does agree with the chair of the Productivity Commission why did he cut the budget for social housing over the next 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I would contest the Minister’s view about the social housing budget being cut. Certainly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She’s not the Minister yet. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —the member’s views—she can put down a question to the Minister of Housing about the detail. But in the interests of getting more assistance for more New Zealanders more efficiently out of the Housing New Zealand Corporation we are changing the way the money is used which means less focus on some of the individual schemes the previous Government had in place and more focus on having more larger providers of social housing. 
Environment—Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust 
4. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When his office had a “quick look at the matters involved” with regard to the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust whom did they speak to and what documents did they look at to arrive at their conclusion that “we did not find anything that raised concerns to us”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Between my office and the Minister for the Environment’s office a review was undertaken of the documents released to the member under the Official Information Act the funding arrangements and the scope of the work undertaken. From that review we were satisfied that the matter did not warrant further investigation. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he and his office not consider that the email from Guy Salmon on 6 September 2011 was a cause for concern given that in that email Mr Salmon sought to pre-empt the outcome of the independent panel’s consideration of the trust’s application to the Community Environment Fund an email that led a ministry official to say that the trust was “pressuring the ministry”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We would reject the assertions that the member has made. I make two points. Firstly the Community Environment Fund funding was actually never used. I am advised that around 15 months passed between the trust initially seeking Community Environment Fund funding and the final decision being made not to provide it. That might be rushed in the Labour Party’s time and thinking but 15 months is not rushed under this Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he and his office not consider the statement from Guy Salmon in the email of 6 September 2011 to be a concern when that statement reads: “Nick gave me to understand that he was going to establish collaborative processes as a specific priority to be funded in the forthcoming … round; however there was no sign of that on the application form. I worry that Nick is so overloaded that he has not actually been on top of looking after this project.” and does that not sound like the trust believes that it was being considered differently from other projects? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It sounds like a couple of things: firstly concern that Nick Smith had an awful lot on his plate which he did because he was a very busy Minister at the time; and secondly a genuine view from the Minister that he thought the right way to go was a collaborative approach—that that would be appropriate for that mechanism to be set up—and that possibly Community Environment Fund funding was the right way to actually fund that. I simply make this point: maybe Grant Robertson would like to go and ask Charles Chauvel what Charles Chauvel said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did his office not consider that there may be issues of concern about the treatment of a trust chaired by a National Party MP when a Ministry for the Environment official said in an email dated Monday 29 August 2011 that the registering of the trust on the society’s register was managed in quick time as a result of “a special favour request”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is nothing unusual about trying to establish a process to resolve an important issue. This issue was an issue of great concern. It had over 10000 submissions. I simply say to the member: go and ask Charles Chauvel and see what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he accept that the funding of important and useful collaborative processes for dealing with environmental issues still needs to be subject to the proper processes and transparency? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and that is why the Community Environment Fund in the end was not used to fund the project as the member should know. I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he believe on the basis of the investigation of his office that the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust received the same treatment as other applicants for ministry funding particularly in light of the Ministry for the Environment indicating in official documents that it had spent 200 hours of staff time on the trust application between March and October 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The trust did not get funding from the Community Environment Fund. The trust ultimately got funding at the discretion of the Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment. There is no question that the Government believed that the collaborative approach was the right way to go. It was estimated to be a tenth of the cost of going through a litigious process. It is also true that the ministry thought that a better way to go was through the court and the Government thought that spending $2.6 million to resolve something that could be approved through a collaborative process was the better way to go. And I simply say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that Ministry for the Environment officials raised serious concerns about the funding of the project? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There were people within the ministry who did not like the collaborative approach and wanted to go to court—they wanted to go to court. They are welcome to their view but we do not listen to every official’s view. And not so long ago I remember being in this House and hearing Helen Clark say she did not get any ideas from officials; she got them from the  
Guardian 
. I say to the member go and ask Charles Chauvel what he said at the Environmental Defence Society conference. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table three documents. The first of those is an email from a Ministry for the Environment official dated Monday 29 August 2011 that says that the societies register application of the trust was processed as a result of a special favour request. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from Guy Salmon dated Tuesday 6 September 2011 to Jacqui Dean in which he seeks to pre-empt the outcome of the community environment fund process. 
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. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a time line developed by the Ministry for the Environment on funding of the trust which includes the statement that the funds management team alone estimates that between March and October 2011 it spent an estimated 200 hours working on funding of the trust. 
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. 
Child Abuse and Neglect—Government Measures to Address 
5. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to better protect children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Protecting children from abuse and neglect is and has been a major priority for this Government. We have introduced a number of significant initiatives that are making a real difference. Just in the last few months for example we have announced the first roll-out of extra social workers in schools and 96 more Child Youth and Family social workers on the front line. The “failure to protect” amendment to the Crimes Act has come into effect and the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill is progressing through the House. 
Melissa Lee 
: How is the Government supporting professionals working with children to recognise and respond to signs of child abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As part of our initiatives to better protect children we funded NGO Child Matters to run 1-day workshops around New Zealand providing training to health education and social service professionals to identify signs of child abuse. To date it has delivered over 96 workshops reaching over 2700 professionals. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that her answers to written questions are correct and that the number of child protection cases that Child Youth and Family has deemed serious enough to prompt further action has increased over the past 4 years by 42 percent to almost 58000 cases yet the number of social workers in reality has increased only by 50? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I said we recently made announcements of those 50 and we have got 96 who will be there overall. Yes notifications have increased. Also though if you like the false positives—so the number of notifications we get— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: That’s further action required. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am just saying also those ones that we do not have to follow up. Over the last 8 years from memory—I do not have the number in front of me—notifications have actually increased by about 400 percent overall. 
Melissa Lee 
: What reports has she received that support the Government’s focus on protecting children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I welcome the coroner’s recommendations which validate the initiatives we have already introduced and the work we are currently doing as part of the white paper on vulnerable children. None of the recommendations come as a surprise as they have been raised in previous inquiries and in submissions on the green paper. A response will be coming forthwith. 
Government Financial Position—Effect on Transport Projects 
6. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Government still intend to achieve a budget surplus by 2014/15; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; we want to achieve this by keeping firm control on the Government’s costs which we believe is the situation at the moment. Budget forecasts show that the tax revenue which is inclined to be more volatile is on track for surplus in 2014-15. 
Andrew Williams 
: Are cutbacks to major Government roading programmes such as the Otaki to Levin expressway—which was scrapped in favour of upgrading the existing highway with the sudden saving of $300 million—now the only hope the Government has of getting anywhere near the target of a Budget surplus in 2014-15; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Andrew Williams 
: Can the Minister confirm that scrapping the four-lane expressway from Otaki to Levin will not be the first of a series of cutbacks to roading programmes in order to achieve a Budget surplus in the 2014-15 year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well if the member wants to debate the details of what decisions have actually been made about the Otaki to Levin highway then he could direct those questions more properly to the Minister of Transport. But what I have put out to the Minister is that decisions about roading are made on their own merits. They are not made in the context of the need for the Government to find money for the 2014-15 surplus. 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In that last question I specifically asked whether it would be the first of a series of cutbacks to the roading programme. So I asked for an assurance that it would not be the start of a series— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister in answering the question said that each decision on one of the roading programmes is made on its own merits so there is no pattern. His answer made it very clear that this was not the first of anything; each decision is made on its own merits. I think he did answer the question. 
Oil and Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing in Taranaki 
7. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he stand by his statement on the  
Campbell Live 
 9 February programme on fracking that “In Taranaki it’s actually been done very very well. There’s been no effect on the environment whatsoever”? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 In context yes; obviously everything has an environmental effect. I am interested in environmental effects that are significant. As I understand it the Taranaki Regional Council stands by its position. There have been no significant environmental effects caused by hydraulic fracturing in Taranaki. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is groundwater contamination at four Kapuni fracking sites which has left water there unfit for potable water or stock use an example of fracking that has been done very very well? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well the statement is incorrect. In the past some pits were used to receive fluids from fracked wells. However I am advised that the fluid returns were highly unlikely to be the source. The monitoring undertaken shows this is a legacy issue. It happened in the past. It is highly unlikely to be associated with hydraulic fracturing according to the Taranaki Regional Council the only independent body in this debate. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is the common use of flare pits in Taranaki an example of fracking being done very very well or is it—as Alex Ferguson the chief executive officer of Apache Corporation reportedly called it—abhorrent noting that his fracking company would not use flare pits on the East Coast? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe Mr Speaker. I tera wiki i korero au ki te Whare kia aro nui ki te ahuatanga o Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. Kua rongo ake a “O-tacky” kua rongo ake a “Tarra-nacky”. Ko taku inoi kia tika ra no te whakahua o nga ingoa Maori i tenei wiki mo Te Reo Maori. Ko te ingoa e tika ana ko Otaki i tenei wa ko Taranaki. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. Last week I said to the House that it should pay attention to the situation that relates to Maori Language Week. I have just heard “O-tacky” and “Tarra-nacky”. My plea is that the pronunciation of Maori names must be correct in this week for the Maori language. The proper name is Otaki and at this point in time it is Taranaki. Greetings to us. 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the goodwill in the member’s point of order. It is not strictly a point of order but under the circumstances I think his point is well made. Where did we get to? The honourable Minister is to answer. Does the Minister remember the question asked? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am happy to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Phil Heatley. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: A number of groups have views on this practice and indeed on oil and gas exploration. Unfortunately on the far right they want to bring out the bulldozers. We as a party are saying no. We want to be environmentally sensible and be safe. On the left side they want to do nothing—that is the Green Party. Fortunately we in the National Party—and the Labour Party which promoted deep-sea oil and gas exploration for 9 years—are sitting in the middle. We are taking a sensible approach. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a clear question. It was not about what other people think about it; it was about what the Minister who is meant to be regulating thinks about flare pits in Taranaki. Is fracking very very good or is it abhorrent? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I hope the member is quite finished. The Minister explained how he saw those issues. He said that the Government is in the middle on those issues. That did not seem to be an unreasonable way to answer the question. I accept it may not have been exactly the answer the member was seeking but it was not an unreasonable answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether in order to avoid some of the problems highlighted by Mr Flavell “Kia ora Catherine” could translate for the member asking the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member has got me totally whacked there. 
Jonathan Young 
: What reports has he seen of the Taranaki Regional Council’s response to allegations in relation to fracking in Taranaki? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well I have seen a letter written by the chief executive of the Taranaki Regional Council in May to the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 that states this: “One of Mr Hughes’ statements is an exaggeration going far beyond the facts as they stand and the other two of his statements defy the facts altogether … An informed and considered public discussion of the pros and cons of hydraulic fracturing deserves better than this. The public has the right to expect integrity in such discussions.” 
Gareth Hughes 
: In that context does the Minister stand by his statement made to the  
Press 
 that he has full confidence in the ability of the council to manage fracking when in the context of that report it was disclosed that the Taranaki Regional Council was not even aware of 11 fracking well sites and had to be alerted to them by the Ministry of Economic Development? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. I am very proud that the ministry has a handle on what is occurring out there. I believe that the Taranaki Regional Council has the most experience in New Zealand in terms of managing this practice. I hope that its experience can be passed on to other councils across the country. However if the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment comes back and says that there are ways that we can improve the practice I would expect the Taranaki Regional Council and other regional councils across the country to take heed of that. I look forward to her report. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can the Minister keep saying that fracking is being done very very well when we have seen groundwater contamination we have seen abhorrent flaring practices and we have got a council that cannot even keep track of where the fracking wells are? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have addressed the issues that he has raised except the water contamination issue. The Taranaki Regional Council asked Hill Laboratories to do water-quality tests on areas that were alleged to have been affected by fracking. It did this on the Cheal sites. Interestingly the water was contaminated. It recorded that faecal coliforms were in the liquid from paddock runoff. I am advised that the Taranaki Regional Council’s monitoring of water quality is ongoing. So on one side the Greens are quite correct: there was water contamination. What they do not tell the general public is that the scientists are saying it is faecal coliforms. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a long answer but the Minister is referring to a report. The Minister knows that it is a very specific well and he did not even answer the question around the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot seriously expect the Speaker to intervene on the basis of the supplementary question that he asked. It was a pretty loaded supplementary question expressing the member’s view—making the member’s view pretty clear—and there is no way we can tie a Minister down to a particular answer given the nature of that question. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table the Ngaere water study by Hill Laboratories on behalf of the Taranaki Regional Council and I also seek leave to table its covering information statement from its website which shows that the report the Minister referenced was about one well site not the 30-plus— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the only independent authority in this debate the Taranaki Regional Council with its not-so-flattering comments about Gareth Hughes’ representation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Child Health—Improved Services 
8. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made in providing improved child health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government has made strong progress in improving health services for children. Immunisation is now at a record level of 93 percent for 2-year-olds. There are free doctors’ visits for children under 6 day and night 7 days a week and a $24 million programme to address rheumatic fever and we have rescued the B4 School checks programme which has seen almost 140000 children being given free health and development checks before they start school. The Government’s policies are not so much about closing the gaps as lifting for all especially those most in need and this is well demonstrated by the immunisation success story. While the immunisation rate for our children has lifted the increase in the immunisation rate for Maori has lifted much greater from 73 percent to 92 percent and for children of Pacific Island ethnicity from 80 percent to an unprecedented 97 percent. In terms of income—this is very interesting—the poorest income groups have exactly the same immunisation rate as the wealthiest groups: 94 percent. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What progress has been made with the new programme to reduce rheumatic fever a Third World disease particularly prevalent in Maori and Pacific Island communities? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the first point I need to make is that rheumatic fever can develop into a life-threatening heart disease and have the patient on 10 years of monthly penicillin injections. But this very serious Third World disease can be prevented and it is one of the National-led Government’s key result areas to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds by 2017. What I can announce today is that the largest initiative ever in South Auckland to deal with rheumatic fever will be launched on Friday. It is going to be opening at the Rongomai School in Otara which will be the first of 18 school-based clinics in South Auckland. Clinics will open in Manurewa Mangere and Papakura schools. The clinics will check throats and skin infections provide antibiotics and provide access to services for healthy housing and injury prevention—a great achievement for New Zealand. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action is he taking to ensure that all rural areas including Invercargill and Lumsden have access to free after-hours urgent health-care for children under 6? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member will know the scheme is not compulsory and the district health boards are negotiating that with various localities. We are currently at just over 90 percent of the country providing that access. That is a tremendous achievement for free after-hours health-care for under-sixes and I look to progress in the southern region with those particular communities in the next while. 
New Zealand - Australia Migration—18 to 30 Age Range 
9. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so how many of the 158167 people that have migrated to Australia since November 2008 as reported by Statistics NZ are from 18 to 30 years of age in number and percentage terms? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Since November 2008 61937 people aged 18 to 30—about 39 percent of the total. Yes I do stand by my statement because I think it is important New Zealand gets on with expanding industries supporting businesses and creating jobs so that those young people feel like they have more choices in a country going ahead not one that is spending and borrowing more than it can afford. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can New Zealand prosper when so many of our youngest and brightest are choosing to work in Australia rather than contribute to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand can prosper if for instance the Opposition supports the Government’s push to expand our oil and gas and minerals industries—exactly the industries that those young New Zealanders are going to work in in Australia. So if it is good enough for them to stay here it is good enough for us to have those kinds of jobs for them. 
Hon David Parker 
: When will he acknowledge that too many young New Zealanders are leaving because under his Government they lack hope and opportunity in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not accept that. The fact is in recent years the Australian economy has had higher growth rates than New Zealand’s. The migration flows between the two countries have generally correlated with those growth rates. The New Zealand Government is pushing to accelerate our growth rate in part by expanding the kind of industry that has been at the core of Australia’s success and that is its resource-based industries where those young New Zealanders are going to get those jobs. Why can we not have them in those jobs here? 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Does he agree that the Canterbury rebuild offers opportunities for young Kiwis to stay and work in New Zealand; if so how does the Government’s record of spending a paltry $8 million on post-earthquake skills training in Canterbury out of a total of $42 million allocated help young Kiwis get the skills needed to fill those jobs and stay in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think there are two parts to that answer. In the first place the Government looks to be heading to spend somewhere around $13 billion to $14 billion in Christchurch and that will provide lots of jobs for young New Zealanders. Secondly in respect of training places there are more training places available than there are young New Zealanders willing and able to take them up and we expect to maintain that situation for some time yet. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that National campaigned so vociferously on reducing the brain drain to Australia why do his targets by which he can be held to account not include any target or milestone for closing the wage gap with Australia nor for decreasing the number of New Zealanders moving from New Zealand to Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The number of New Zealanders going to Australia can be measured every day. The one way to stem that flow is to support businesses that make the decisions to invest more and employ another person. That is why so many New Zealanders did not vote for the Labour Party in the last election—because they know that it does not take that approach. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is he proud that the Statistics New Zealand figures show that National’s policies are turning Generation Y into “Generation Oz”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is not what the figures show. I am very proud that National’s policies are turning round and repairing the damage done by the last Government to this economy and are building a brighter future for thousands of young New Zealanders. 
Business Research and Development—Advanced Technology Institute 
10. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: How will the Advanced Technology Institute boost business-led research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 The Advanced Technology Institute is designed to be a one-stop shop for businesses’ research and development needs. It will support firms at different stages of development from start-ups to established research and development performers to innovate in response to domestic and international market opportunities. The Advanced Technology Institute will consolidate services that were previously only available across a number of entities if at all. These include services such as product testing analysis and certification research and development work access to business research and development funding commercialisation assistance and intellectual property advice. The Advanced Technology Institute will also broker connections for businesses with the specialised expertise equipment and facilities they need to develop new or better products or services whether located within New Zealand or further afield. 
Colin King 
: How does the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute and the Government’s commitment to science and innovation compare with the previous Government’s spending on research and development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually we have made tremendous progress given tight financial conditions. Total Government spending on research and innovation funding has increased dramatically since 2007-08. In fact funding has increased 46 percent in that period from $848 million to $1241 million in 2012-13. We have also managed to increase the share of business-led research and development expenditure from just 8 percent of the total in 2009-10 to an estimated nearly 20 percent in 2012-13. Combined with these funding increases the creation of the Advanced Technology Institute will help better link business and science and help create new high-tech products and services which are crucial to help New Zealand grow faster. 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister—Use of Powers 
11. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Why did he use section 27 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to amend the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement instead of using the Order in Council provisions of the Act or developing the recovery strategy or a recovery plan? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I inserted chapter 12A into the regional policy statement to ensure that there was enough easily consentable land for new subdivisions in the Greater Christchurch area. I did so with the encouragement of and in consultation with local authorities. Section 27 was seen as the quickest way to ensure delivery of new residential sections on safe ground for the many people in Christchurch affected by New Zealand’s largest natural disaster. I am passionate about effecting as fast as possible a recovery for people in the Greater Christchurch area. I note that the judge said that he believed I had acted in good faith. I am pleased that the decision has left in place the new subdivisions that were fast-tracked by my decision. I will now consider fully what the judge’s decision means and what implications it has. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does he stand by his statement that the powers under the legislation are “essentially reserve powers and there will be checks and balances on the use of these powers so the public can have confidence they are being used wisely and with restraint.” and why did the court not think that he was using them wisely and with restraint when he acted outside the powers of the legislation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the current judgment and I accept that. However there is going to be some consideration of exactly what that judgment means. What I would say is that there was a need for new subdivisions to be enacted in Canterbury quickly. Even the member herself was calling for that at a number of points as were some of her colleagues. The urban development strategy on which the change was based was created through a very long consultation process that dated back to 2004. During that time there were numerous community consultations undertaken by the strategy partners and there were some 3250 submissions on growth management options for the Greater Christchurch area. That resulted in plan change 1 which was promulgated in 2007. There were around some 700 submissions lodged in response to that and there were hearings held throughout 2009. The matter was then taken to the Environment Court and that is where it was stuck at the time of the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. I worked after that very closely with the elected representatives to try to come up with a solution that did not mean that we were cherry-picking through the Government legislation exactly which subdivisions went where. We chose a solution that the community itself had chosen. The judge has said that we used the wrong provision. I cannot challenge that and I wish to say no further about that but I would note that there are thousands of sections available now that would not have been available under any other process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister agree that the court upheld the judicial review because the Minister had chosen an option that had none of the checks and balances that he had told the people of New Zealand would be in place? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think my answer to the previous question absolutely rejects that proposition. The fact is that I did not accept the lobbying of individual property owners. I did not accept the offers of individual property owners. Instead I accepted— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interject or take a point of order during the very lengthy answer that we had before. The specific question that I asked was whether the reason for the court’s decision was the lack of checks and balances that he had said would be in place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the goodwill in the member’s point of order but in the Minister’s answer I think he is being very careful not to comment on the legal implications of a judicial decision. It is not for a Minister to second-guess why a judge may have made a decision the judge has made. I think the Minister is trying to be very careful not to comment on the judge’s decision not to offer reasons why the judge may or may not have made the decision made. That is why I allowed the Minister somewhat more latitude and I am sure the experienced member would know that the Minister has to be very careful in that regard. I see it being quite difficult for the Minister to try to answer too precisely what the member has asked. Has the Hon Gerry Brownlee finished the answer? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I think so. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does the Minister recall identifying the checks and balances that he said would be in place and from which the public could take comfort: the four-person independent review panel the cross-party forum the forum of community leaders appeal rights and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority being subject to the Official Information Act? And can he confirm that in fact none of those particular checks and balances were in play when he made his decision? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If one was to dissect the Act and the various reasons for the powers then all of those things would be true. But section 27 stands on its own and we believed that it was quite appropriate to move things in a rapid way. One of the extraordinary things I will point to in the judgment—and I make no comment on it—is that the judge has said that he felt that the decision was about matters that had existed prior to the earthquake event and would endure beyond the earthquake event and therefore the recovery powers were inappropriate. Matters that were in place prior to the earthquake event were the faults underneath Christchurch and secondly we would hope that all the decision made by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in conjunction with local authorities Ngai Tahu and other individual partners do endure beyond this earthquake event. The judge has ruled that we used the wrong provisions under the Act. 
Biosecurity Management—Government Initiatives 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What recent announcements has he made to further improve New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 On Friday I announced that 11 new biosecurity detector dogs would join the front line this year. This is a 42 percent increase in the number of detector dogs active at our border. Detector dogs and their handlers are another important part of our biosecurity system’s front line. The dogs’ visual presence at the airport is a big factor and they are great at detecting seeds and plants that X-rays may miss. 
Shane Ardern 
: What additional improvements is the Minister making to New Zealand’s biosecurity system? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I strongly believe that New Zealand’s biosecurity system is the best in the world and that the Ministry for Primary Industries does an outstanding job. Having said that neither I nor the Ministry for Primary Industries are content with simply maintaining this world-leading system. We are continually looking to make improvements and they include such things as adding 40 additional jobs to the biosecurity front line in Auckland and Wellington next month progressing the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill through the House and progressing a number of Government-industry agreements. That is why biosecurity expenditure in the last year was the highest that it has been in the last decade and almost double what it was in 2001. 
Richard Prosser 
: Does he agree with the findings of the Sapere Research Group report into the outbreak of Psa in New Zealand that the lack of consistency in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff’s individualised approaches led to “reactive and fragmented assessment of the risks of Psa across individual pathways”; if so what action will he take to ensure there is greater cohesion between Ministry for Primary Industries staff in order to mitigate future risks? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Action has already been taken accepting the recommendations of that report. What it clearly demonstrated to me is that there does need to be substantially better engagement between industry and the Ministry for Primary Industries if we are to get the best possible outcomes for the biosecurity system. What Psa showed is that there were changing circumstances and that information was never fed to the people it should have been fed to at the Ministry for Primary Industries. 
Personal Explanation—Comments Made at Environmental Defence Society Conference 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation in respect of a reference to me earlier in question time by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The Prime Minister referred to comments that I made at a conference of the Environmental Defence Society some years ago where I expressed a preference in general terms for collaborative dispute resolution procedures over litigation. I stand by those comments but obviously they were made without any knowledge of the funding structure for the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust its membership the involvement of Ministers or members in that trust or the view taken by officials of the appropriateness of those arrangements. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister—Judicial Decision Regarding Use of Powers 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the High Court ruling that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery stepped outside the legal limits of his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 in making his decision to amend the 1998 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. The manner in which the Minister exercises his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act is undoubtedly an important issue for the House because of the considerable nature of the powers the Act grants. 
However for there to be an urgent debate there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. The Minister’s decisions were yesterday set aside by the High Court and an application for a judicial review granted. There is no ministerial responsibility for a decision of the High Court. The urgent debate procedure is a way of holding the Government to account for matters of recent occurrence. There can be no particular case of recent occurrence in the absence of any further decision by the Minister which in all probability may not be forthcoming until the outcome of the judicial review is known. The application is therefore declined. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am actually seeking your assistance on this because I am a little unclear. There have been instances where snap debates have been given in the House as a result of a decision of a court. In this particular case it is a judicial review of a Minister’s decision. The Minister made the decision last year and would not be making another decision in response to the court’s decision because the court’s decision did not allow aspects of it to be overturned. So certain aspects of it as I set out in my letter have been allowed to continue and they are the developments that are taking place in I think three of the particular subdivisions. So there is no need for the Minister to take another step. 
The problem is that there was a lot of public controversy surrounding the very extensive powers in the legislation and I think this Parliament does have a duty to oversee how the legislation is actually operating in practice. I think the Speaker will recall that there was considerable debate certainly on this side of the House as to whether we would agree to the legislation going through which we did but we feel that the scrutiny is required. So that is why I have put forward the letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to risk the contribution to a debate by a point of order. But the member herself has pointed out that the court has made a certain decision to set aside something and there is no ministerial decision at the moment. If the Minister had made an immediate decision in response to that then there would have been indeed perhaps a matter for the House to debate urgently. But the court has made a decision simply to set aside a decision of the Minister. The Minister or the Minister on behalf of the Government has made no response whatsoever to that and therefore there is no matter of recent occurrence for this House to have an urgent debate on. That is why the Speaker’s decision is made the way it is. 
The member may well be right that there may well be interest in the ongoing powers that the particular Act conferred on the Minister but that is a matter for debate under normal opportunities when the House has a chance to debate matters. It is not something that requires the House to set aside its business today. And that is the test. The member is asking that the House set aside its business today so that this particular debate can be held. That is a high test that is required and it sometimes is met indeed by the urgency of a matter where there is ministerial responsibility. But in this case there is no particular urgency because the Government has not actually made any decision that complies with the requirement for it to be a case of recent occurrence. 
General Debate 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Kiwis have got a good idea of what a fair go means—an attachment to the idea that no matter where you come from no matter what your background you will get the chance and the opportunity to get ahead and achieve your potential. But with this Government it is clearly not what you know; it is who you know. If we look at the front bench of the National Government it is definitely not what they know—we can see that from over here—but it is who they know. This is a Government governing in the interests of the few—the wealthy few. 
Let us just take asset sales as one example. It is a huge transfer of wealth from the vast bulk of the population of New Zealand to those who can afford to pay—to those who have got the $1000. It is a transfer from the panel beater in Waitakere—“Waitakere man” if you like or “Waitakere woman”—who has a stake in those assets today. That is being taken away by this National Government and handed to the share traders of Parnell. But more than that the loyalty scheme that is now in place means that the panel beater pays twice because they are funding the costs of transferring the shares to the New Zealanders who can afford them. This process will widen the gap between the rich and the poor which is something that this Government has no compunction about doing. 
We all know that the beneficiaries of the asset sale programme are the banks and the consultants who are raking in millions of dollars to sell off what New Zealanders have built up over generations. They are the same consultants and contractors who are milking the public sector purse for all it is worth because this Government thinks that the best way to say whether the public sector is working is to work out what the headcount is. Well the Government departments are responding. They are reducing the headcount all right and the money is going straight to consultants and contractors. It is spiralling out of control. 
The National Government seems to have got its messages confused. When New Zealanders say they like the idea of looking out for their mates they do not mean the National Government lining the pockets of its friends at the expense of hard-working men and women across New Zealand. Then in a zero Budget somehow or other the Government finds $40 million for private training establishments. Funding cuts in education bigger class sizes no allowances for postgraduate students but $40 million for private education. 
National says it wants to crack down on welfare. Well how about starting with a crackdown on corporate welfare? This Government is governing in the interests of the few and not the many. The stench of cronyism that pervades this Government is as strong as the smell of the brakes on Hekia Parata’s tyres as she reversed on class sizes. 
Conflict of interest and cronyism is a long roll-call in this Government. Stephen McElrea the Prime Minister’s electorate chair who is on the board of New Zealand On Air was interfering in decisions about programming straight before an election. There was a loan to MediaWorks from Steven Joyce the man who knows a lot about that company—$43 million in that company just happens to allow DJ Key to spin his discs just before the election. Then we have got the appointment of Katherine Rich to the Health Promotion Agency. Katherine Rich is a highly capable person but she has another job. She runs the Food and Grocery Council. 
But it is more than that. There are two other members of the Health Promotion Agency Lee Mathias and Jamie Simpson who are respectively the electorate chairs of Sam Lotu-Iiga and Gerry Brownlee. You may well ask what qualification Gerry Brownlee’s electorate chair has to be on the Health Promotion Agency. Well I can tell you what it is. He is an insurance broker. That is the qualification that he has got. It is jobs for the boys. We can go on. There is the ACC and Bronwyn Pullar saga and the Skycity and pokies for legislation deal. This Government is full of cronyistic deals and conflicts of interest. 
A key player in the ACC saga was Nick Smith who now finds himself right in the middle of the latest bout of cronyism and conflicts of interest—the funding of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust. Let me say for the record that I want to acknowledge the great work of the many community groups that have been involved in the collaborative process down there. My concerns are not about them. My concerns are about a trust launched at the National Party Bluegreens conference chaired by a National MP and directly funded by a National Minister and about what that funding says about the transparency and accountability of this Government. 
The Prime Minister wants to sweep this under the carpet. For him the ends justify the means no matter what. But our reputation as a country with a transparent Public Service must be jealously guarded. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I found the allegations of cronyism a bit rich especially at times where I seem to be a one-person employment agency for former Labour MPs. But I want to start by acknowledging and paying tribute to Margaret Mahy one of our great literary figures who died on Monday. Her books were translated into a dozen languages and I am very pleased to see that Joy Cowley and other writers are planning an hour-long tribute to her at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October where New Zealand will be the country of honour. 
Last weekend I went to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in Wellington which performed Wagner’s  
Valkyrie 
 in honour of another great New Zealander Lloyd Morrison. Nothing more exposes the inaccuracy of headlines that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra could be axed than the fact that I sat through 5½ hours of Wagner on a Sunday afternoon. Every New Zealander should support and be proud of this institution although as Michael Cullen said to me yesterday there will always be some people— 
Grant Robertson 
: Sir Michael. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —Sir Michael; I apologise—who say that orchestras are a waste of money and that there are some who say that the second violins should be abolished because they are an unnecessary duplication of services. I was very impressed by the singers at the concert although the tenor could learn a thing or two from a certain member of this House who I am not allowed to bring into the debate but whose musical virtuosity is known to and appreciated by us all and I am not referring to Brendan Horan. 
Last weekend we had a very successful National Party conference in Auckland. Spirits were high and the protests were scant. Nothing makes left-wing protesters abandon their cause faster than light drizzle. The mood of the public was positive and it is because this Government is getting things done for New Zealand. We are settling historical grievances with iwi we are rebuilding Christchurch we are improving infrastructure we are paying down debt and we are strengthening New Zealand’s capital markets. This will be a very busy 3 years for this Government and we will deliver results for New Zealanders. 
The Labour Party members have been very busy as well staring at their own navels. They have just finished a momentous review not of how to grow the economy or make the tax system work better but of how much of a voting share Helen Kelly should have in picking potential Prime Ministers. I think they have settled on 20 percent. David Shearer has put in place a new organisational structure to cement his future as leader. Rather than plotting in the shadows and briefing TV3 Labour’s roll-call of leadership challengers will now have to write to the party’s governing board to initiate a spill with the support of two-thirds of the caucus. Forward-thinking members like David Cunliffe will protest that his campaign website is a more 21st century way of signalling his intentions than old-fashioned letter writing and Grant Robertson that great internationalist currently temporarily resident in Wellington Central probably thinks that a text from New York will suffice. 
Mr Shearer is a traditionalist. He has consolidated his position. He stands on the brink of greatness at the threshold of ensuring his tenure as the longest-serving Leader of the Opposition in Labour Party history. Mr Robertson will also reach another great milestone—perhaps not the one he was after—and will be remembered as the longest-serving deputy leader. Mr Shearer may justify the odds to be known as one of the great tacticians of New Zealand politics. He has quietly outmanoeuvred Mr Robertson who has stacked the party’s headquarters and parliamentary offices with his loyalists. But Mr Shearer has changed the rules of the game. I do not mean to say that Mr Robertson will never make it to the top job; in fact he has often struck me as— 
Grant Robertson 
: He’s obsessed with me. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not obsessed with him. He has often struck me as the Gordon Brown of New Zealand’s social democracy. And I am not suggesting that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson are not close. A number of media profiles that accompanied their ascent to the Labour leadership noted their similarities. They are very much the Noel and Liam Gallagher of the Labour Party. But there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert. 
Grant Robertson 
: What band are they from Minister? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Oasis. As I said there is no oasis for the Labour Party; it is all desert. It has been a week of triumph for Mr Shearer out of the limelight away from the glare of public attention which he does leave to Mr Robertson. He has sorted out his legacy. 
But how irrelevant it all seems when one compares that with the achievements of our great Prime Minister and his Government: on the one hand an inward-looking party focusing on how to deal with party challengers and on the other hand a party and a Government that are interested only in a brighter future for New Zealand. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 E te Mangai o te Whare tena koe. Over the weekend Government Minister after Government Minister was rolled out at the National Party conference to attack the Greens. Either National members have nothing to say about their own economic achievement or they must be pretty scared of the support the Greens are getting to have spent so much time at their conference attacking us—or maybe both are true. Although National likes to talk up its economic management it has actually bungled its way through the past 4 years. Under its watch debt has skyrocketed and many New Zealanders have lost their jobs. National came into office with zero net Government debt and it is now $40 billion—that is right billion—in the hole. That is the biggest borrowing binge in New Zealand’s history. 
We hear a lot of excuses from National about the difficult financial times but what exactly has been National’s brilliant economic response? It decided to borrow $2 billion to give tax cuts to the rich it is borrowing another $1.5 billion to subsidise polluters and it is splurging $12 billion on economically irrational motorways. National oversaw 63000 more Kiwis lose their jobs. Unemployment is increasing under National. National believes that GDP growth is the be-all and end-all but it continually misses its Budget growth targets. Let us be clear about this: John Key has overseen the worst economic growth record in at least half a century. 
 What National is scared of is that the Green Party offers a serious alternative. Our smart Green economics plan is jobs rich innovative environmentally sustainable New Zealand - owned and long term. The UK’s biggest business lobby group the Confederation of British Industry has just released a report showing the billions of dollars that green growth can add to the economy. The director-general John Cridland said: “with the right policies in place green business will be a major pillar of our future growth.” National certainly is not going for growth; its dirty grey plan is jobs poor derivative environmentally destructive foreign-owned and short term.  
John Key and Steven Joyce who have ineptly stood by as 63000 Kiwis have become unemployed like to lecture us about the need for job-creating policies but the truth—the fact—is that their policies have led to more unemployment whereas our policies create more jobs than theirs. Investing in public transport is jobs rich. For every dollar invested in public transport it creates twice as many jobs as every dollar spent on motorways. National is wasting $12 billion on uneconomic motorways that increase our dependency on imported oil and create very few jobs. The Greens will invest in a sustainable smart transport system that gets us off our oil addiction and creates twice as many jobs as investing in motorways.  
Sustainable clean energy creates three times as many jobs—dollar for dollar—than investing in fossil fuels which is this Government’s obsession. Not only is investing in sustainable energy the right thing to do for the climate and our future but it creates more jobs now. Twenty-thousand manufacturing jobs have disappeared under National as the Reserve Bank’s myopic focus on inflation dooms us to a current account deficit. The Greens will grow the manufacturing sector by reforming monetary policy so that our manufacturers have a level playing field at home and overseas.  
Bereft of ideas National is selling assets to try to patch up its botched economic management. Its plan B is to deface our national parks and drill our oceans for fossil fuels. Mining employs just 5500 people—that is it. You would have to increase the amount of mining fivefold just to replace the jobs that have been lost in manufacturing while this National Party has been in Government.  
Tourism and agriculture employ 92000 and 97000 people respectively. These industries depend on our “clean green” brand and bring in nearly $40 billion in export revenue. The smart thing to do is to invest in these job-rich industries rather than damage our brand to create a brief fossil fuel bonanza for foreign-owned companies. That is why the Greens back clean sustainable farming and why we back high-value environmentally friendly tourism.  
The truth is that National’s woeful record on jobs and job destruction is no accident. It is happy with high unemployment because it helps drive wages down. The Greens will not put up with it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I intend raising a point of order myself. Before I call the next member I have allowed one Government member to read a speech in the general debate. Having been sucked into that I had to allow a member of the Opposition to read a speech in the general debate. I am sorry for the rest of the speakers but in the general debate this afternoon there will be no more read speeches. We have had enough of read speeches. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your anticipation was brilliant. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the review of the Standing Orders Committee I distinctly recall the discussion and the agreed version of the report that was subsequently released. Although there is a preference for non-read speeches it was made clear that any member could make— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. The Speaker does not need a lecture on the Standing Orders Committee. The Speaker chaired it and remembers it very well. The exception is for highly technical speeches where Ministers are for example introducing a bill or delivering a speech on the second reading of a bill that may be a technical bill. But where a member is talking about party politics the House does not have to suffer read speeches. Occasionally there is some merit where perhaps a very humorous speech has been written out to get the timing and it can be quite amusing sometimes where a speech is carefully crafted. But speeches that just climb into party politics are neither necessarily carefully crafted nor need to be read by any member in this House and we will not have any more this afternoon. The next speaker is the Hon Phil— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still on my feet. I am warning the honourable member that this is a place for debate and we do not need to have speeches written outside of this House read in this House. Members are meant to come into this House and debate. This is the general debate. It is not a place to read positions of political parties; it is the general debate. The House deserves—unless as I say there are exceptional circumstances—for members to actually contribute to the general debate. That does not involve reading speeches. I stress that only the Speaker can raise this issue; members are not at liberty to raise points of order about their colleagues reading speeches. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respect your individual recollection of what occurred in the Standing Orders Committee. That does not accord with my individual recollection of the discussion or the agreed consensus that emerged in the Standing Orders review. It is not the case that written speeches read out would be confined to ministerial speeches or technical speeches. There was some leeway given to individual judgment as to whether a speech would be read word for word or used by notes or given extempore. It was on that basis that the Green Party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Maybe it might be of assistance to the member for me to read the report of the Standing Orders Committee on this matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do it from memory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not attempt to do it from memory. Reading of speeches: “We also wish to reiterate that where possible members should not read speeches. The reading of speeches was precluded until 1996 and we wish to reassert this rule as a convention rather than through an explicit amendment to the Standing Orders to this effect. The House is a forum for debate and proceedings are enlivened when members participate and engage with each other perhaps with the use of speaking notes to aid the memory. However no member other than the Speaker may interrupt the member who is speaking to suggest a breach of this convention and the Speaker may allow speeches to be read in some circumstances. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion or the relative experience of the member concerned. There will however be occasions when it is not inappropriate for speeches to be read.” 
I think that makes pretty clear what I have just put to the House that the Speaker may accept the reading of speeches where there is technical material detailed material or occasionally where a very cleverly crafted speech is being delivered. I think all members can enjoy that from time to time. But a speech presenting a party’s position on political matters does not need to be read to this House and I have said I acknowledge that the Hon Chris Finlayson read quite a carefully crafted speech and on that basis there was no way I could have intervened in the case of the co-leader of the Green Party. I have allowed that to happen and all I am saying is that for the rest of the afternoon unless I hear a particularly detailed matter being covered I expect members to contribute to the general debate. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would recall the very first words you read out in that paragraph which says “where possible”. This accorded an element of individual discretionary judgment to the MP. It was on that basis that the Green Party agreed to the report. If you are going to interpret that paragraph to accord to yourself total discretion as to whether an MP in his or her individual judgment may wish to make the most boring speech in the annals of this Parliament that is not for the Speaker to determine. If you wish to do that then the Green Party will revise its view of that report and disassociate itself from it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do recall the debate that occurred at the Standing Orders Committee. Some of us would have preferred the wording to be tighter. In fact some of us promoted having it in the Standing Order as it had been previously. It was in the end a consensus of the committee. The wording went through without dissent. It had the two exceptions: it was the technical exception for Ministers especially on first reading was the discussion and secondly for inexperienced members. That member fulfils neither of those requirements and I therefore totally support the Speaker’s ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. I do not think we need to put further attention on this this afternoon. It is only for the good of the House that I raise the issue. I accept that I allowed one member to read his speech this afternoon and that is why I wanted to make sure that on the other side of the House I did not preclude another member from reading his speech. But I want to encourage members for the rest of this general debate which I would rather we got on with to please enter into the spirit of the general debate. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to pursue it beyond this and this will be my last comment on it but that is not the understanding on which I participated in— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. We are not going to debate this matter in the House now. The Speaker rules on all matters in this House and if the member does not have confidence in the Speaker there are certain procedures to follow in that regard. But the Speaker has ruled that consistent with the findings of the Standing Orders Committee there are occasions when speeches can be read indeed. In fact I remember on a recent occasion the member reading a particularly detailed speech following his attendance at an international conference. I did not intervene in that case because there was a lot of detail the member wanted to convey to the House. That is a judgment of the Speaker. In all matters the Speaker rules in this House. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 It is very interesting what is coming from the Green Party in that view because what it does is highlight the points I made this afternoon. I want to tell members what my mother told me. She said: “Phil young Phil when you tell the truth you never have to remember what you said.” I say to the Green Party that when you tell the truth you do not have to read your speeches. You do not have to gather your lines— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! In saying “you do not have to do this” and “you do not have to do that” the member is referring to the Speaker. The member must use the appropriate part of speech if he is going to attack another party. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I was quoting what my mother was saying to me and she said: “Phil when you”—Phil—“tell the truth you don’t have to remember your lines. You don’t have to read your speeches. We don’t all have to stick to the same line.” The reality is that over at the Green Party they are way off beam when it comes to getting the facts out there. 
There is something we love about Green Party members and it is that they are untainted. They are holy they are pure and they are untainted. They are untainted by reality they are untainted by experience and they are untainted by the facts. I do not know why the Labour Party is so intent on climbing into bed with them. I find it interesting that the Labour Party and the Greens are so very much closer together. 
The Labour Party said we could not clarify labour laws in order for  
The Hobbit 
 films to be made in New Zealand. The Labour Party hates the hobbits. The Labour Party said we cannot upgrade roads of national significance. In fact it said “We’re not going to upgrade the road north of Auckland to Whangarei.” It hates Whangarei people. The Labour Party said that foreigners cannot invest in New Zealand. The irony of that of course is that the Labour Party says it believes in ethnic diversity. It says “Will people of different ethnic backgrounds please vote for us—but do not spend your cash in New Zealand.” The Labour Party said we cannot deliver better public services with fewer bureaucrats. It said it is against irrigation in the South Island—and the Labour Party is against oil and gas exploration as well. 
I would like to present to the House this map here because the Labour Party apparently is against the almost $1 billion in royalties and company taxes that we collect each year. This map here shows the areas in blue that we have recently released for block offers across New Zealand—the areas in blue. We are very proud of this. We hope exploration companies will come here they will find another Maui gasfield and New Zealand will be able to get a little bit of a boost to its local economy. What this map also tells you as the Labour Party rails against oil and gas exploration is that the areas in yellow are what the Labour Party released for exploration over the last decade. [ 
Interruption 
] Over the last decade the Labour Party released those areas in yellow for exploration. 
The reason why that is fascinating is that that great statesman of this House whom we all love and know said this at the time about the release of the Great South Basin area under Labour Party rule: “Assuming exploration success the country stands to earn significant revenue from royalties and taxes flowing from this investment and it will assist in ensuring security of energy supply.” That great statesman David Parker the then Minister of Energy was very enthusiastic about exploring in the Great South Basin. Do you know what? He did it naked. David Parker was naked because there was no exclusive economic zone legislation in the Great South Basin when he promoted that—no regulation out there at all. The Labour Party believed you could have oil and gas exploration in the Great South Basin without regulation. It turns its back on that now because it wants to be greener than green. 
Of course the Labour Party also has forgotten about the Maui gasfield and all it has done for 220000 consumers in the North Island with New Zealand - made gas. I do not know why the Labour Party is against such successes. I do not know why it does not support anything for this country. 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 I will just straighten my speech notes here which have technical details on them. This Government believes it can contract out accountability. It has privatised corrections it has privatised energy generation and last week it pushed through a bill that is going to privatise many of our social welfare services— 
David Bennett 
: What did Winston do? 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: —and what is worse the Minister actually promises us there is even more. There is even more Mr Bennett. Look forward to it. New Zealand First believes that the New Zealand public is actually starting to wake up to what the real agenda of this Government is. The aim of this Government is to keep its population in a state of apathy around the economy with the continual references to “There is no alternative. We must do this.” but at the same time it is going to privatise the State by stealth. We can see that in almost every piece of legislation that is coming through this House but nowhere is it more disturbing than in the field of education. 
I am talking about charter schools and I am talking about the privatisation of the State education system creating an industry for profit not for our children not for academic outcomes and not for our communities. No no no—this is an industry for profit and those two words prominently appear in the supply and confidence agreement between this Government and the ACT Party. At the moment it is called charter schools but officials quite rightly pointed out in a Cabinet paper way back in February at the beginning of this year that we already have charter schools here in New Zealand. Every single State school has a charter so it has recommended that as early as possible the working group come up with another name. It has also recommended that a bit of money be put into actually promoting and putting a bit of spin on this so that the New Zealand public think that it is a great idea that their hard-earned taxpayer education dollars are given to people who are going to make a profit off it. 
The fact that the Government is going to drop the first two of these schools into South Auckland and Christchurch in its own disturbing little way makes it worse. So this name is up for grabs. We have got some names. We can all put them in a bucket. Let us put some forward and add them to those of the working party group. How about: “Fleece the Taxpayer of Their Education Dollar Schools”. How about that? Shall we chuck that into the pot and see whether that—or what do we say: “We run it up a flagpole and see if anybody salutes.” Is that how you say it Mr Bennett? What about “Another of John Banks’ Stupid Ideas Schools”? How would that go? Shall we try that? We need to get another name because we already have charter schools. Actually— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I think she needs to read it. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: None of this is written down Mr Henare. Some of us actually can create it on the spot Mr Henare. These are notes Mr Henare. 
If ever there was a sign that this was a stupid idea surely it was the flashing sign above Mr John Banks’ head that this idea came out of an ACT Party meeting that was held in a telephone box. I mean that is how many people basically voted for and participated in the ACT Party yet this was the idea. Or was it? This is interesting; I want to quote here and I will just consult my notes. I am quoting here: “At a meeting between Mr Banks and a group of education officials Mr Banks was quoted as saying: ‘I have outsourced all thinking.’ ” Now we would suggest— 
David Bennett 
: You had to read that? 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: I wanted to make sure I got it right because it is hard to believe that somebody would say that. But we would suggest that Mr Banks actually outsourced his thinking some time before. We would suggest that it is a shame that Mr Banks did not outsource his memory because it would be nice if somebody else could remember whose helicopter he was on. But he was referring to charter schools and the working group. 
Mr Banks and Mr Key are attempting to sell this charter schools idea as I said to the New Zealand public as a silver bullet. This is the silver bullet for the tail end of our education system. As I say they are going to pop it into South Auckland and into Christchurch. Mr Key has gone on record as saying: “This is to provide choice.” Choice! These are the same words the Bush administration used to actually stop central government investment into the American education system. There are some very interesting parallels particularly as our Minister of Education seems to be going to the United States to do some professional development on it. 
But I suggest that we might be being a bit unfair to Mr Banks and the ACT Party. Perhaps we are crediting them with an idea that actually was not theirs. Let us look at the employment of the Secretary for Education Lesley Longstone. She was actually appointed in June 2011. That was well before the November election. That was well before any supply and confidence agreement and she has actually been hired at $160000 more than the person who had the job before her Karen Sewell a New Zealander. Her previous position was actually as a director-general of infrastructure and funding in the United Kingdom from September 2010 where she was responsible for delivering free schools. This is privatising and it is wrong. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 At the risk of sounding sycophantic I want to reflect on the National Party’s annual conference and in particular—[ 
Interruption 
] Never never really but I understand the risk. I want to talk about Phil Heatley’s speech to the party faithful at the conference in Auckland on Saturday because I think that it was one of the best speeches I have heard one of our Ministers do and in particular it was about the opportunities for oil and gas exploration in this country. He told the party faithful a story about a province in this country; a province that can successfully marry dairying tourism and oil and gas exploration completely comfortably and has done so for decades. That province— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Lucy Lawless would know that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right; Lucy Lawless would know exactly where that is because that is the province of Taranaki and the city of New Plymouth. I think it stands out as the model for what can be done when environmental risks are managed and when there is a comfortable coalescence with all of those things—dairying tourism and oil and gas. The numbers around Taranaki are quite compelling. Where New Zealand’s GDP per capita is at around $46000 Taranaki’s GDP per capita is at around $88000. Oil and gas is a significant contributor to the increase over the national average. 
There is another province in this great country of ours and it has dairying and it has great tourism and it may—just may subject to further exploration—have some fantastic oil and gas fields not far off its shores. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Canterbury? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is the province of Otago—close Mr Brownlee but not quite. In fact though it is at the south end of the Canterbury Basin I think they call it. 
I am particularly concerned to ensure that city leaders in Dunedin are unequivocal about their support that as long as environmental risk can be managed that resource should be exploited. So I was a little concerned to read in this morning’s  
Otago Daily Times 
 that the Dunedin City Council fracturing into two camps has narrowly decided to join calls for a moratorium on fracking. Never mind that there is no fracking going on in Otago never mind that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has not yet completed her inquiry into the risks of fracking and certainly never mind that there was no community consultation before the council passed this motion. It is important because I think as a city leader that it is time to stand up and say this: as long as the environmental risks can be managed Dunedin must promote must lead and welcome the Anadarkos and the Shell Todds who have the exploration licences and head out off the shore at Karitane and down at Nugget Point and explore those fields that Mr Heatley pointed out. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not Nugget Point! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes Nugget Point; yes marine reserve that is right. It will be comfortably coalescing I am sure with the environment down there and the tourism opportunities and the dairying opportunities in South Otago. The three can coalesce because the city actually contributed to a multi-party economic development strategy that said: “Dunedin will be one of the world’s great small cities. It will be known as a confident competitive knowledge centre”. It then goes on to talk about things like business vitality a compelling destination a magnet for skills and talent and so on. When I was a child— 
Dr David Clark 
: How about Hillside? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: When I was a child—I will come to that Dr Clark—25 percent of the companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange had their head offices in Dunedin. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flight north and across the Tasman. That 25 percent—that is right go and have a look at the numbers—the Donaghys the Fisher and Paykels the Shacklocks and the McLeods all had their head offices in Dunedin. I cannot stand by and look the people of Dunedin in the eye and say that it is sad what has happened to Hillside that they cannot compete with larger and more technologically adept companies internationally and then turn round and say that we are equivocal about oil and gas exploration. I cannot do it. So I stand up today and I say as a city leader that I support those companies coming in. They had expertise in mining and deep-water mining in particular and I think that this would be great for the city. I call on other leaders to do the same and in particular the Dunedin City Council. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I am very glad the National Party members are talking about their so-called glorious Nuremberg-like rally that happened on the weekend. The Prime Minister came out of that triumphant in his own mind that the National Party faithful—of course all of whom who could— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a completely unacceptable reference that was made by that member. He should be made to withdraw and apologise for it. You cannot use words that relate to that particular regime in this House in other contexts and it should not be used in the context of this debate when it is reference to another party as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise if any offence was given. I just say this for the record: I think the member has got it completely wrong but I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Had the member referred to something to do with a Nazi-style conference that would have been out of order. I am loath to all the time keep ruling words out of order. I appreciate the member’s preparedness to withdraw it but I think we have just got to be careful to not be ruling words out endlessly over the years. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is not the words; it is the reference he made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should not be interjecting although I understand the depth of feeling around some of these issues. The reference is made through words. I thank the member for withdrawing his comment and let us let it lie at that. I appreciate that. I thank the member. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: With no link to that I think the member has gone troppo but we will not go there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not helpful. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He had a bad day yesterday. We have it now in writing from a High Court judge confirming what everybody knows in Canterbury and around the place that Gerry Brownlee is incompetent and we now have the papers to prove it. But let us go back to the great rally of the National Party conference. Out of that came the Prime Minister and he announced a loyalty scheme as part of one of the biggest wealth transfers in our history—which I suspect we will look back on it as—from those who cannot afford it to those who can. He came into this House with a loyalty scheme that is an admission of defeat because if the Prime Minister felt as he has trumpeted as Gerry Brownlee has and as all the National Party members have that these shares in our assets will be retained almost ad infinitum in the future by ordinary Kiwi mums and dads then the question remains why you need a loyalty scheme and why that loyalty scheme will be paid on the back of all those who cannot afford the $1000 to $2000 parcels. 
The Prime Minister then came into the House yesterday from my memory—I note this for the press gallery because when we would get up in the House from time to time when we were in Government the press gallery as were the then Opposition were at pains to ask us to provide detail around costings and other things—he got up and was asked for detail around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he had not thought it through. He was asked for a costing around the loyalty scheme. Zero; he did not have the numbers. Then he decided to criticise this side of the House for references to an authoritative Treasury report from his own Government department but could not put a dollar figure on the costings a dollar figure on the impact no detail and no reference at all. There are those in the media who would term that perhaps as “policy on the hoof”. That term I think is too light for this. 
The Prime Minister on radio called me a fool for references I made around State-owned enterprises. Well I say this to the Prime Minister: only a fool would swap revenue-generating assets making around 18 percent for debt-servicing costs of around 5 percent and every Kiwi who can balance their housekeeping and make the budget work every day has worked that out. The fool is the Prime Minister. The fool is the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister has tried to say benevolently to people who already own the assets that they can buy those assets back for a second time—for a second time because we know that they already own them. Then he said to them that those who do buy in those who can afford $1000 or $2000—and if they can ordinary Kiwis I suspect will pay off 20 percent of the credit card rather than invest in this—will get a loyalty bonus. Those who cannot afford it get nothing. 
Then of course we have the issue of possible Maori tribal and iwi challenges. Yet the Prime Minister and his ilk go ahead bludgeon this through—bludgeon an initial public offering through under the worst market conditions you can possibly have and under the potential threat of legal action. I ask how that will be resolved. That will be resolved of course in the tried and true way of the Prime Minister making a deal. I suspect that it will be resolved through a share allocation. So we have a bonus share allocation. Kiwis are so loyal that they do not need it but the Prime Minister has thrown it in. By the way that bonus matures—hey presto—in about 3 years’ time. When is that colleagues? Just after the next election. I ask National given that it has not made up its mind on much whether it will guarantee that that bonus issue that loyalty scheme will mature prior to the next election—prior to the next election say in 2½ years’ time. That is a bribe and a con designed simply so the Prime Minister can say that all Kiwis are in—until they get the windfall bonus in the lead-up to an election and then we know Kiwis will be out and foreign investors will be the ones who are in. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. I am really interested in young people and at a recent motivation event I heard the principle of “Be. Do. Get.” The principle behind that is the idea that intrinsically you are worth value but unless you “do” you do not get the results that you deserve. The National Government understands that all too well. Contrary to what Mr Cosgrove said we are an intelligent Government we are working hard and we are action-packed. You will hear from my other colleagues the activities that we are involved in. But what we understand is that it is OK to be the Government but you have to “do” if you want to get the future that New Zealanders need want and deserve. 
As the MP for Christchurch Central to me the most important commitment this Government has made is to support the rebuild and the recovery of Christchurch and Canterbury and this Government is 100 percent behind that. Those of you who have visited Canterbury or Christchurch will know that we are totally focused on the earthquake recovery. In fact I do not know what we did or what we talked about before the earthquakes. We worked together really well to manage the disaster and we are working together well to manage the recovery. But things are still tough. There are still difficult challenging issues out there but we are making progress. We are focusing on fixing homes because we want everybody safe and warm. We have worked on resettling people who had totally damaged properties and 5000 of the 7000-ish who have been in the red zone have now signed their documents and are ready to move on. We have also repaired 20000 houses. That is a little bit bigger than the size of Timaru. There are still 30000 houses in that process but we have also put accommodation villages there so people can move out of their houses move into that accommodation and then move back into their houses when they are finished. The good news is that Fletcher EQR—that is the earthquake recovery people—are telling us that they are completing 100 a day. 
We are getting very good at demolition. We have demolished about 1200 commercial buildings in the centre city with another 200 to go. That might sound negative but in actual fact it is really positive. You cannot rebuild until those buildings are down. And we are rebuilding fast as well. The stadium was up in 100 days. The new out-patients department at Christchurch Hospital was up in 150 days. And our new library has just opened this week. So we are trying to fix communities. It is actually horrifying the number of public and community buildings that are being repaired or coming down. We are also fixing infrastructure: the roads the pipes the sewers—things that you cannot see too much but things that are incredibly important. I have some statistics here: 41000 square metres of roading 1500 kilometres of water network assessed and 45 kilometres repaired. Overall there are 200 projects going on in Christchurch worth over $920 million. So if you get the feeling that there are roadworks going on in every street in town you are probably right. 
But it is not just building infrastructure that is important; we also need to focus on the health and well-being of Cantabrians. I really want to congratulate the health professionals in Christchurch who under very difficult circumstances with really broken facilities have delivered first-class health. What is more they are now dealing with the normal winter ills in the city as well. In terms of well-being I think Cantabrians are amazing. They are resilient they are positive and they are working hard to rebuild our city. Our economy is growing new businesses are opening and old businesses reopening every day unemployment is down and there are people actually moving to Christchurch to be part of the rebuilding. We are very pleased with the local plans that are under way and we are looking forward to the central Christchurch blueprint which will be announced next Monday. I have absolutely no doubt that Cantabrians can and will rebuild a better stronger and more environmentally friendly and beautiful city. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is very clear that this Government has a propensity to appoint its friends in order to advance its own interests. It does not matter whether it is Brian Neeson Ken Shirley Ravi Musuku Georgina te Heuheu Sir Wira Gardiner Wayne Mapp Jenny Shipley Steven McElrea Judy Kirk Don Brash Richard Griffin or Richard Long and I could go on with an assortment of former members of Parliament electorate chairpeople failed candidates for the National Party or old staffers. This Government continues to appoint people it prefers in order to advance its own interests. 
There is one particular appointment that I want to speak about with some real seriousness because it goes to just what the Government is trying to achieve with its appointments. One of the people in the last manifestation of the National caucus whom I admired a great deal was Katherine Rich. She is a woman of ability and principle and I admired her a great deal. She in fact led the National caucus on some issues such as the section 59 debate when she refused to be whipped and follow the party line and made sure that we got better legislation than was in place. This is a person of principle Katherine Rich and she is the head of the Food and Grocery Council. So why has the Government appointed her to the Health Promotion Agency? There is clearly a conflict of interest. 
The food and beverage industry is a $15 billion industry and the Food and Grocery Council’s own objective is “To promote oppose or move for the recision of any legislation regulations by-laws or policy affecting the interests of members.” and I quote that from the objectives of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council. My very great fear is that they have deliberately created this conflict of interest for a woman of ability because they wish to have some mitigating influence on the work of the Health Promotion Agency. What is the objective of the Health Promotion Agency? Well the Health Promotion Agency it says “must lead and support activities for the following purposes: (a) promoting health and … encouraging health lifestyles: (b) preventing disease illness and injury: (c) enabling environments that support health and … healthy lifestyles:”. The Food and Grocery Council has campaigned against the mandatory inclusion of folic acid in bread it has campaigned against the reduction of salt and sugar in food and it has campaigned in favour of liberal trading policies for alcohol. 
 So my distinct suspicion is that this Government has cynically appointed this woman of ability so that it can mitigate messages that should come out of the Health Promotion Agency so that nobody could ever accuse it of being nanny State and so that it can reassure its friends in the food and grocery industry that it still has their interests at heart. “Do not worry we will not let any of that namby-pamby health promotion stuff get away on us. We will make sure that we do not do anything that affects the sale of your sugary products or your salt-laden products or your products that do not inspire health or healthy living in any New Zealander.” 
My very deep concern is that National’s cronyism not only sacrifices some of its best people but also is used in the interests of the industries that support it. In this particular case its cronyism is used against the interests of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. This is one conflict of interest that this Government is using deliberately for its own purposes and it needs to reflect seriously on that issue. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we were very privileged in this House to have the presence of the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe a man who has made a huge commitment to his country and is a leader of his region. He has I guess had to eat a few bitter pills in his time to actually deliver what he wants to see for his country going forward. But that is a true leader: somebody who knows what their country wants who is willing to do what is needed for their country and who has the presence and ability to deliver that over time. We wish him the best in those endeavours. Just like the New Zealand National Party is a party that has the best interests of New Zealand at heart that is making the right choices for New Zealand and that is willing and able to go through the tough times to make those choices a reality and to make this country good and great. We are lucky to have the leadership of this country in the hands of National at this time. 
The Labour Party has no plan. It attacks personalities. That last speech from the Hon Maryan Street was very disappointing in the way that it tried to attack a personality rather than to go and to look at the real future of New Zealand and to put a plan out there. It is very divisive politics that you see from the Opposition. It tries to prey on the fears of individuals it tries to prey on those who are weak and it tries to make something out of nothing so that it can actually go out there and be seen as the saviour of all when it is not the saviour at all. It is not the saviour. It does not believe in New Zealanders or in this country. It believes only in itself and in the grand conspiracy theories that you see from parties like the New Zealand First Party in this House this afternoon whereas on the National Government side we know what we need to do. We need to have a balanced economy; an economy that has the fundamentals right; an economy that invests in those very strong principles of education infrastructure and development— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: An economy that widens the gap between rich and poor. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —an economy that looks after people in need; and an economy that delivers for all. And when we hear members across there trying to yell out things from the Opposition benches they do not look at what is actually required for New Zealand. We hear this in regard to the mixed-ownership model. The Opposition and Grant Robertson started off today saying it is a transfer of wealth. That is what he is saying. Well it is not a transfer of wealth. The people who will potentially buy those assets through the shareholdings are actually sending money to the Government for those shares. The Government will benefit from that investment; that investment then will be used to deliver more public services for all New Zealanders. If anything the transfer of wealth is from those who are willing to invest to the Government to deliver for all New Zealanders. That is what is really going to happen rather than a transfer of wealth as the Labour Party seeks to assert in this House. 
I thought we had a very good speech today from Chris Finlayson though. It was an excellent speech and it followed his excellent debate at the National Party conference. He spoke about the change in how the leadership of the Labour Party is determined and said that it has inevitably meant that Mr Shearer has got a prolonged stage of leadership of the Labour Party which is good news for National and it is good news for New Zealand because Mr Shearer will not achieve his goal of being Prime Minister. That will mean that National has more opportunity at the next election with him as the Labour Party leader. 
When you look at the Green Party though it is very disappointing what it is doing in this House and in the public eye. The Green Party should be a party that talks about the real issues. The Green Party is a party that should look at the truth and deliver that in this House. The Green Party does not do that. The Green Party is a party at odds with its coalition favourites the Labour Party. They naturally will be at odds because the Labour Party does not want to lose votes to the Greens and the Greens want to take votes off the Labour Party. That is a marriage that cannot last. There will be some divisive fighting between those two parties in the next 2 years as they fight over the same territory. The Labour Party has one advantage over the Green Party and it is that it tells the truth more often than the Green Party—not that much more but it does sometimes. That is one thing that the Green Party needs to invest in if it seriously wants votes. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 E te Mangai o te Whare tena koe. The speech from the last speaker “Mr Ardern” talked about telling the truth. I will tell the truth about what this Government is doing with our natural assets as well as our State-owned assets. Just as it is selling off our State-owned energy companies the Government is selling off and trading away our natural assets and I am talking to two particular proposals in Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is Riverstone Holdings’ proposed monorail and Milford Dart’s proposed tunnel between Glenorchy and the Hollyford. I am very pleased the Minister of Conservation is here because she recently received some of the concerns of the people of Te Anau that that proposal for the tunnel would completely undermine tourism in the area. It would take people away from visiting Te Anau. 
These two proposals are proposed for one of our most distinctive and special natural areas: the wilds of Fiordland of Snowdon Forest. They are both part of Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area. It is one of only 188 areas that are recognised by Unesco for their outstanding value to all humankind. 
Earlier this year I walked through the Kiwi Burn and the Upukerora valleys where the monorail is proposed to go. The trees and the forest in those valleys—it is red beech forest. There are some very beautiful trees; some very old trees that are potentially hundreds and hundreds of years old. The monorail would create a 200 metre wide 30 kilometre long scar through the Snowdon Forest. By the Department of Conservation’s own estimates it would destroy 20000 trees which would have to be logged and cleared to create the corridor for the monorail. 
Riverstone Holdings is targeting conservation land because of course it is much cheaper to socialise its costs by using public conservation land for free or for a modest concession rather than buying private land for its proposed monorail. Yet the Department of Conservation is supposed to be managing these areas for the preservation and protection of the natural resources that are there. It is the habitat of threatened species like kaka kakariki and the long-tailed bat yet Riverstone Holdings proposes putting people in these sealed tin cans to send them swishing through the landscape. How will that increase their appreciation of what a New Zealand forest is like? By cutting the journey between Queenstown and Te Anau and missing out that beautiful section round the lake where the road is in the shadow of the Remarkables and you are looking out across Lake Wakatipu how will that increase people’s appreciation of New Zealand? 
It goes through an area that at the moment is perfect for families and novice trampers because it is close to the Mavora Lakes. Sensible tourism operators people whom the Green Party supports and who are establishing the Save Fiordland Society see that the future of that industry is based on getting people into the outdoors and encouraging them to see what nature is really like not just to have them speeding through the landscape in a sealed tin can. Those operators are part of the Save Fiordland Society. Those people are banding together to mobilise public opinion against these two very destructive high-impact proposals. 
We have not had a good record from this Minister. She presided over the freeholding of part of what was to be part of Craigieburn Forest Park and allowed it to be traded and sold off to the Porters Ski Area development. Mr Michael Slee who was the director of development for the Porters Ski Area proposal is also involved in the monorail proposal. Once they had their concessions from the Minister what happened? Blackfish which was involved in putting forward Porters Ski Area was onsold to four Russian multimillionaires. Given the large amount of capital that is required for both the tunnel and the monorail what would we see here? We would see overseas corporates that might benefit from the jobs and the consultancy contracts involved in constructing the monorail and the tunnel but these would be overseas-owned companies destroying New Zealand nature in return for their dividends going offshore. 
People are mobilising to stop these proposals in order to protect the outstanding values of the South West New Zealand World Heritage Area because they recognise that this is conservation land. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am starting my contribution by greeting you in the Maori language because this is the week when we are acknowledging the Maori language. If we want to keep our culture alive we need to stick to our language and that is very important. English is not my first language and you had a little debate today that debaters should not read their speeches. I read my speech because of this House’s prestige. I do not want to get stuck somewhere. That is why I prepare my notes my thoughts so that I can keep reading them. Mr Speaker I hope you will excuse me if I read in between my speech some of my notes. I am not used to debating without my notes. 
When we migrants come to this country we bring a lot of dreams in mind. We have got a lot of energy for the hard work that we are ready to do and we are sure we will succeed with the hard work and support of our families. I am proud to be part of this National Government which provides the tools for businesses to grow in this country. Less red tape-ism better infrastructure and better facilities are the success tools for businesses to grow. I am sure everyone from the small and medium-sized businesses will agree with me that the National Government is supporting them. 
I am proud of this National-led Government which gave this country its first ethnic MP Pansy Wong. I am also proud of this Government which gave us Pansy Wong as the first Cabinet Minister from an ethnic background. I am proud to be part of this team and I hope this Government will keep on working in this direction. 
I would like to quote Mahatma Gandhi who said: “Men often become what they believe themselves to be. If I believe I cannot do something it makes me incapable of doing it. But when I believe I can then I acquire the ability to do it even if I didn’t have it in the beginning.” It is very important that the businesses which are run with a lot of hard work and the support of the families succeed over here. What every business that starts needs is a great idea to start with resources and capital to succeed a workforce that can help it to produce its production and lastly infrastructure so that it can sell its product not only in this country but also overseas. The Government for its part is supporting facilities and multiple initiatives because it is our sincere wish to see that everyone living in New Zealand should succeed. 
We are also involved in a number of initiatives that facilitate the growth of ethnic businesses. The forums organised by the ethnic affairs ministry are directed to help them to succeed over here. The recent forum organised by the ethnic affairs ministry about the African community was very successful. There the Minister for Ethnic Affairs the Hon Judith Collins said that New Zealand’s African community brings with it a great deal of energy and experience to our shores and we are able to use that experience and energy in the development of this country. 
I feel that organising such events is a wonderful way to empower individuals and communities. It makes them feel welcome and says to them: “We are there to support you while you are integrating into New Zealand.” It provides migrants coming to New Zealand with a sense that now they belong to New Zealand and their efforts towards building the New Zealand economy will be well supported. 
I would like to finish by saying another quote by Mahatma Gandhi: “As human beings our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world … as being able to remake ourselves.” This I believe is the story of most migrants. Tena koe Mr Speaker. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 27 June. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I certainly want to use my final 2 minutes for the purpose of recording that New Zealand First does support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and there are five reasons to do so. 
One is the opportunity for observance by all employees and that should be something that is primary in the consideration of the bill. Without the opportunity to observe these important days we do not have a proper system of observance at all. The second reason relates to fairness. Some employees work on weekend days and some do not. It should be fair between them all. The third relates to consistency. There should be more consistency around which days you can Mondayise and which you cannot. Fourthly we need to enhance the importance of these two days. And fifthly there is no real burden on the economy from doing so. 
Finally as a holiday can be granted in two out of seven years on average there can be no burden on employers either. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 May I begin by saying that we on this side of the House are voting against the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to use the time I have available to actually explain to the other side what I seen as lacking. 
There is obviously a lack of understanding on the other side of the House on the Opposition benches of the primary industries which we are very fortunate to have. The effects of such legislation on the primary industries has been perverse for some time. The whole exercise and example around this can be illustrated well by looking at Anzac Day should it fall on a weekend. There are many employers and employees who are involved in flexible working situations. I want to use one that is fairly close to my heart and that is the wool industry. In regard to the shearing industry it is not uncommon to be in a situation where workers these days are managing farms. When it comes down to actually trying to get some cohesion and coordination within a seasonal pressure situation such events as are being proposed by this bill are nothing but cumbersome and obstructive. 
 An example is a farming business where the employer enforces the employees getting the sheep in ready for a Monday start or a Tuesday start. In the event of this bill what happens? It is a Wednesday start. So there are costs. This is just one example. There is the other situation where there are very often wet seasonal situations. A situation comes down to its Friday and it has been raining for a week then in the weekend it comes right. Nobody is going to start work on Sunday because there is another holiday on Monday. Nobody starts work until Wednesday. We are talking about thousands of people who are affected by this situation. Weather-dependent situations do arise. Whether it is making of silage making of hay or putting in the critical winter crop it is guided by a situation. We are not talking about 1 day or 2 days here; we are talking about 4 days in effect. I have seen no indication of consideration of that from the other side of the House. 
In effect this sort of legislation also creates inequity around the business model that is operating at the time. It enables an owner-operator to carry on doing their thing whereas an employer who offers job security to employees is totally put at disadvantage. What these sorts of bills do is actually create perverse incentives whereby the employer will put employees on subcontracting situations to be able to get round this situation. 
You may say on the other side of the House that 88 percent of people come from urban areas and only 12 percent of people from rural areas. Well that is not quite the case. 
I can say with great pride that it never happened in my day—and thank goodness it did not—and it should not be happening today. When we look at work the popular view is that a holiday is marvellous but from my own personal experience a holiday with four children was a costly experience. When you look at the family situation today it is quite clear that this bill is making a rather complex employment situation even more complex. 
It is objectionable that people on the other side of the House in Opposition stand in the way of people who want to work. It is sort of consistent when you stop and think about it because the Opposition finds it better to give away productivity—better to give away those opportunities for New Zealand to get ahead. On the National Party side of things here we are very proud of the work we have done to try to make sure that this economy grows and goes ahead. 
Let us count some of those things. The complexity of this bill does not address the full situation. In the hospitality area a lot of people have Mondays off. They work from Tuesday to Saturday and they will not be covered. So as far as this bill addressing an anomaly all it does is create further complexity. Within the primary sector there are some huge problems around the complexity. Today as in my day when the sheep are dry or when the hay is ready to be made that is when you should work. So I have no difficulty in opposing this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech from Colin King! I think somewhere in the middle of that speech he decided he did not like Christmas he did not seem to particularly like children very much either and he does not want people to have holidays. But the National Party unfortunately has a history— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He’s got children. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes he has. That is right Mr Guy—he has. And the point of that interjection is? The National Party has never liked the idea of workers getting holidays. It has never liked it. When legislation on 4 weeks’ annual leave came to this House the National Party members got up and they opposed it. Judith Collins said this during the debate on 4 weeks’ leave: “I do not have a lot of sympathy with anyone who wishes to be generous”. That is what Judith Collins said when she got up in this House to debate 4 weeks’ annual leave. The sky did not fall in when the Labour-led Government introduced 4 weeks’ annual leave. In fact people got to spend more time with their families and they got to enjoy more time in their communities. 
Holidays for workers are actually very important for productivity and that is why businesses actually support this legislation the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. Businesses know that in 5 out of 7 years they will have to plan to give people time off for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. It is not that difficult to turn that into 7 out of 7 years. That is what businesses are saying. Today in the House we have already heard that Martin Snedden from the Tourism Industry Association is saying that this is great— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A great New Zealander. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He is a great New Zealander who supports a great bill because what he said is that this is going to be good for the economy. This is actually going to lead to more business on those days that people have a holiday. 
But ultimately this bill is about a fair deal for families in New Zealand. The Holidays Act has 11 public holidays in it and in every year New Zealanders deserve a fair go to have those 11 public holidays. It is an anomaly that when Anzac Day and Waitangi Day fall on a weekend we do not create a holiday on a Monday. It happens for Christmas Day. We hear from people on the other side of the House that somehow or other this very good bill is diminishing the importance of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. Far far from it: Christmas Day when it falls on a weekend generates a holiday on a Monday. Has Christmas suddenly lost its importance in New Zealand? Absolutely not. 
Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are important days in New Zealand’s history. They are an important part of our identity. This bill will enable New Zealanders to commemorate those days on the days they fall on 6 February and 25 April and it will give New Zealanders the days off every year—not just for 5 years in 7. That is a good thing. In Australia where in most states this applies attendance at Anzac Day services has been going up. People value the day they value the importance of the day to our national identity and they also enjoy the fact that they can have a day off with their families. 
This bill has been a long time coming and as someone in whose name it formerly was I can tell you that it is enormously popular with New Zealanders. New Zealanders understand that they deserve a fair deal. New Zealanders work hard. New Zealanders work harder than most people around the world and that is a good thing. But New Zealanders deserve the 11 public holidays in the Holidays Act every year. This bill is a bill that the Labour Party is incredibly proud to bring to this House because it is about fairness for families. It is about a fair deal so that people can actually spend more time with their families. Why would National oppose a fair deal for families? Why would National say that workers do not deserve the 11 public holidays that they are guaranteed every year in the Holidays Act? 
I believe that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day will continue to grow in importance for New Zealanders. They will continue to be part of what shapes our national identity. What this bill does is recognise the importance of those days and says to New Zealanders that they will get a fair deal. That is the fair deal that a Labour Government will provide. In Opposition we are at least able to put this bill forward. I am very grateful for the support from other parties which I am sure will see this bill pass and it will be a great day for New Zealand families. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatau katoa. I a tatau e korero nei mo tenei o nga pire e rua nga take nui whakaharahara e pirangitia nei e au e matau o te Pati Maori hei whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata. Tuatahi ko tera o nga waiata nga karanga nei me ki “honour the Treaty” tera korero. Ka rua ko te ahuatanga o te waihotanga mai o Ta Apirana Ngata i te wa i a ia. Ara ko tana korero ko “the price of citizenship”. Enei take katoa “honour the Treaty” “the price of citizenship” kei reira tonu tetahi hononga ki waenganui i nga kaupapa e rua i roto i tenei pire. 
Ehara i te mea kua aro atu matau ki tenei mea ko te hararei kao. Kua waihotia ake tera ki te taha. Ehara i te mea kua aro atu ki te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te moni me nga mahi o te pakihi kao. Ka waiho tera ki reira. Kotahi tonu te kaupapa ko to tatau nohotahi i raro i te korowai o Aotearoa. Nga ra e 2 katahi nei nga ra whakaharahara hei hanga i tenei mea ko te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. Ka mutu ko ta tatau nohotahi a-Maori a-Pakeha me ki i te whenua kotahi. Me pena ka tika i tenei ra i tenei wiki i te mea ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori tenei 25 tau mai i te wa i whakamanahia ai te ra o Te Reo Maori. Me ki ko te ture Maori Language Act 1987. 
Ko enei momo ture me tera o te Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 he kaupapa nui whakaharahara o roto i a tatau. Na runga i te aha na runga i te mea ko enei kaupapa e rua e hangaia nei hei whakakotahi nei i a tatau—kaua ki te whakawehewehe. Ka mutu ka puta te korero he whenua motuhake a Aotearoa ta tatau noho a-iwi Tiriti a-iwi tangata whenua. 
Ko etahi o te motu ka ki atu e no mua noa atu no nga ra o nehe enei korero katoa. Waiho nga take o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki mua ki reira tahuna mai ai. Ka mutu kare he paku panga o era kaupapa o nga tau 1840. Waiho era ki reira kare he take o enei ra ko taku ko te ki atu e kao kao. Me korero i enei korero mo te Tiriti ka tahi me korero mo te ahuatanga o te hunga i haere ki tawahi mo te pakanga. Ka mutu kei reira tonu tetahi tauira o roto i te Muriwhenua fishing report i te tau 1988. Ka puta te korero a te Taraipiunara o Waitangi mo te ahuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i enei ra. Anei ta ratau i te reo Pakeha: “Any impracticality today results not from the Treaty but from our failure to heed its terms. The important point is that there was and still is room for an agreement to be made.” He kupu whakaharahara enei kupu i te mea he mea whakaohooho nei i te ahuatanga o te timatanga mai o te Tiriti. Ka mutu he hononga o te Tiriti Pakeha ki te Ao Maori e noho nei i raro i te korowai kotahi. Me maumahara ano hoki tatau i hainatia te Tiriti i te tau 1840. Ka mutu 200000 Maori ki tera o te 2000 Pakeha. Ko wai te porangi ka ki atu ka tukuna e te Maori tona rangatiratanga ki te hunga manuhiri me ki. Kare au i te whakaae atu ki tera. No reira i whai atu nga matua tipuna o te Ao Maori i tenei huarahi kia nohotahi i raro i te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te rangatiratanga kua mohio tonu tatau e noho taupatupatu nga kaupapa. 
Ka mutu ka hoki mai ki te ahuatanga o te Anzac. He kaupapa ano ra tera kua pa mai ki a tatau. I te rau tau kua hipa ake i konei a Ta Apirana Ngata i roto i tenei Whare Paremata i mua o te wa o te haerenga o nga hoia ki tawahi me tana korero mo tenei mea o “the price of citizenship”. Ko tana korero i haere nga Maori ki tawahi ki te pakanga i tuku i te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te oranga o te tangata mo te aha? Ka mutu mo te equal citizenship i raro i te korowai o te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
No reira enei korero katoa e hangai tonu ana ki a tatau inaiatonunei. No reira koinei te ahuatanga o ta matau harikoa kua eke tenei o nga korero ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata. Ko ta te Pati Maori he tautoko i te ia o tenei pire ka mutu ka tautoko ake kia taea ai e te marea te wananga te hohonutanga o tenei mea kia hoki mai ki taku korero e rua nga take “honour the Treaty” ka tahi “the price of citizenship” ka rua. Era atu korero katoa mo te moni waiho mo te wa. Tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings everyone. As we debate this bill there are two concepts that we the Maori Party wish to present before Parliament. Firstly there is the activist chant “honour the Treaty” and secondly there is the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata’s phrase “the price of citizenship”. Both are connected intimately in this bill.  
Our support is not connected to the opportunity for a holiday. Neither is it about the impact of this bill on productivity or whether Mondayising the day makes good business sense. Our support is founded on the fundamental importance of these 2 days in helping define our sense of nationhood. Of course it is an appropriate time to be doing this in Maori Language Week the 25th anniversary of the Maori Language Act 1987.  
Legislation like that Act and the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act are milestones along the way in the journey of nation-building. They are pointers in our collective knowledge about what makes us unique: the relationship between the indigenous people the people of the Treaty.  
Some people seem to speak of history—more particularly the events of 1840 or the world wars in which our nation served—as being about a past that has no relevance to today. I reject those sentiments. That is precisely why we need to continue to talk about the Treaty and to reflect on those who went overseas to war. In the Muriwhenua fishing report of 1988 the Waitangi Tribunal spoke about the practical application of the Treaty for the modern world. This is what they had to say in English: “Any impracticality today results not from the Treaty but from our failure to heed its terms. The important point is that there was and still is room for an agreement to be made.” These words are important because they remind us that at the genesis of the Treaty was a solemn commitment for two parties to live together. We have to remember that when the Treaty was signed in 1840 the population was something like 200000 Maori and 2000 Pakeha. It does not make sense that those chiefs who signed the Treaty would voluntarily give up power to a visitor so to speak. Our Maori ancestors pursued this pathway to ensure the continuation of Maori authority which continues to be debated.  
Let me return to Anzac Day which is very significant to us. Last century in Parliament Sir Apirana Ngata described the participation of Maori in the war effort as “the price of citizenship”. His enduring battle cry was that Maori sacrifice and service in the name of war should be honoured with the recognition of full and equal citizenship as promised in the Treaty of Waitangi.  
And so all of these statements pertain to us now. Therefore we are delighted this debate is before Parliament. The Maori Party endorses the essence of this bill and we support the public delving into the complex aspects of this matter as I repeat two calls: “honour the Treaty” and “the price of citizenship”. Leave the debate about money for another time. Thank you. 
] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora koutou and kia ora to that member Te Ururoa Flavell. I want to take members’ memories back to earlier this year when we enjoyed fine weather across the country on both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. We had record crowds around the country commemorating those events and people spending time with their families friends and loved ones. But the year before last and last year people missed out on their full complement of holidays. This year by contrast we had increased commemorations and increased celebrations. I am looking forward to this bill the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill passing through the House so that hard-working Kiwis can get the holidays they deserve every year not just in 5 years out of 7. 
I want to acknowledge again at this point the contribution of Grant Robertson who originally drafted this bill. His astuteness needs to be put on the record. I have been proud to sponsor this bill because it is a good bill. It is a bill that is about a fair deal for Kiwi families. There are 11 public holidays in the Holidays Act and we deserve all 11. This bill makes sure we get them all. The growing significance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day to our sense of history and identity as New Zealanders means that they deserve full recognition—full recognition in the same way that other holidays get full recognition. 
I want to take a minute just to contemplate what we have heard from the other side of the House in this debate. The strongest argument perhaps if we could call it that has been put forward by David Bennett who announced that we should not fix this problem because it does not happen again for a while. I want to suggest that that is akin to not fixing the roof because it is not raining. The problem is here in front of us. We have the opportunity to fix it and we should get on with it. The only other argument I have heard put forward by the members opposite outside this Chamber is that it somehow demeans the day. That is rubbish. We know that they Mondayise Anzac Day and their national day in Australia and attendances at both events have gone up. In 2010 when Christmas was celebrated on a weekend no one thought the celebration should be put off. They celebrated it on 25 December and the celebration was no less sincere because the day fell on a weekend and because they got an extra holiday and some time with their families on the day after Boxing Day. 
It is interesting that today Mind Your Own Business released the results of a survey it conducted last year when it asked its members—businesses—what they thought of the proposal to Mondayise and 50 percent of small to medium-sized enterprise business owners said they supported the idea of Mondayising public holidays that fall on a weekend. Just 13 percent opposed the policy. So 87 percent of small-business owners felt that it was either neutral or a beneficial thing and that is because good business owners tend to take a positive view of policies that support their employees. 
Hon Member 
: That’s right; they do. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: That is right and I am quoting from the press release here: “the majority of business owners believe that the benefits to their employees—in having time off to spend with friends and family—and the productivity gains that come from a positive work life balance are worth investing in.” The Labour Party agrees with that view. 
There are benefits we have heard as well for domestic tourism. As chief executive Martin Snedden highlighted yesterday $36 million accrues to the economy with each of these holidays and the Minister of Tourism John Key has to stand up to that industry and explain why he does not think they should get that benefit. It seems more and more that the National Government is getting offside not only with workers by stealing their holidays from them but also with employer groups. 
The most important thing though that this legislation does is give hard-working Kiwis a little more time with their families. Kiwis work amongst the longest hours in the OECD. They work 1 or 2 hours extra every week more than their Australian counterparts and they get paid less. We know that there is a correlation between productivity and countries that value their workforces. There are benefits to the economy of having well-educated well-rested and productive workers. 
I want to thank the parties around the Parliament for their support for this bill: my Labour colleagues of course the Greens New Zealand First the Maori Party United Future and Mana. These parties have heard the voice of New Zealanders unlike the party of Grinches opposite us. My bill corrects an anomaly. It offers the full recognition to Waitangi Day and Anzac Day that they deserve and it ensures hard-working Kiwis get the holidays they deserve every year. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The purpose of this bill is very simple but the principles underlying the introduction of this bill are incredibly important. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964 and particularly for the people in the Green Party I want to acknowledge that this is not repealing having joints in the family home. 
This is also a bill that is a statement about the laws of New Zealand that they need to be tidy simple current and up to date and is also about reducing tautological redundancy if you will allow me a little bit of etymological humour. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Yes please. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Thank you. I really enjoyed that now that the Labour Party has gone on holiday. Anyway before I turn to the particulars of this bill I do want to reflect on the context in which it was introduced. It is almost 8 months to the day in fact 8 months tomorrow that I was elected to Parliament to the great seat in fact the best seat in Parliament the seat of Tamaki. They are absolutely thrilled that their new member of Parliament is having the opportunity to take a piece of legislation a member’s piece of legislation through the House. It is a really great privilege to be able to guide it through and to learn the process. That does not take away from the importance of the bill but what it is is an opportunity to be a legislator. I suppose it is a good reminder to us all in the House that our first core purpose is to be legislators so I am absolutely thrilled and thrilled too that my constituents are happy with that. I have been having a lot of good engagement with them and with lawyers and that around Auckland in particular. It is an honour to be here to have a bill in my name so early in the piece. 
I want to now turn to thank my colleagues who have given me great support in preparing for this and the Clerk and others in Parliament who have assisted. Again this is a new experience. My thanks also to those in the community. As I said I was struck from the moment it was pulled out of the ballot in the Table Office how many people be they media lawyers or others were on the phone to ask questions around this. That is always an excellent way to polish up your knowledge of and reading on the area. 
I noted that the primary purpose of the bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964 but I also noted that there is a wider philosophy within this and that is to make legislation that is accessible clear concise up to date non-repetitive and current. This is emblematic of National’s philosophy. It is a commitment to legal clarity to reducing red tape and to eliminating unnecessary legislation. It is a benign little bill in this House and I am looking forward to the unanimous support of the House. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Hear hear. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Indeed. Because you know who wants to stand up here and say that we need more legislation and more red tape? This really is a simple bill to get those easy things done and for all of us to make this country a little bit better. 
I do want to turn now to the legislation itself and to talk a little bit about the background that provides the context around the whole repeal bill. The Joint Family Homes Act was put through in 1964 to protect the family home. Anecdotally what it was there for was that if the wife or the husband went bankrupt then the house itself could not be lost. It was to be registered in the joint name of the married couple. Importantly it was there to secure the family home from unsecured creditors and I think that is one distinction that I have needed to put out to the public when talking with them over recent weeks and months. It was a situation again where bankruptcy was the primary concern—that if the husband or the wife went bankrupt there was an opportunity to protect the family home. 
Another important aspect or area of the Act that was put through and not often discussed is that it protected only the equity of the house or up to $103000. I know there is often a lot of talk in the House around rising house prices and so forth so this bill which is seeking to repeal the Act is shown in the context of really bringing things up to date. 
I should return to the initial Act of 1964 not that I was around at the time of course. At the time the Act came through there were death duties stamp duties and gift duties. We find now that there is no need for the Act. The Law Commission realised this in 2001. It put out a fairly substantial report and I am quite sure all members of the House have pored over that word for word. It was in 2001 that the Law Commission recommended this change and my colleague the now Hon Jo Goodhew sponsored the bill but on taking the Crown warrant she had to hand it over. I took a bit of time to consider whether to put my name to this and as I was saying to someone the other day I did not do so lightly. All legislation is important. I think actually it is a really good example of the efficacy of being in the Table Office when the ballot is being drawn. The first time I put my name to a bill the first time I went to the Table Office the bill got drawn out. So I am looking forward to my second and third member’s bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You should have taken a Lotto ticket instead. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: I did. I was not so lucky on that one Mr Mallard. The Law Commission has said that this Act is no longer needed. This is a chance to repeal it. What we have seen is that new legislation over the years has replaced the need for this Joint Family Homes Act. We have the Property (Relationships) Act which splits assets automatically. We have family trusts and the added value of late that gift duty is no longer required. We also note that the previous Act limited the amount that could be held to unsecured creditors. As I said death duties have gone and stamp duties have gone and the Act is now a redundant piece of legislation. 
Finally turning to the practical elements when this Act first started we had over 30000 people who used it but back in 2001 it was just over 1000—of course that is about 11 years ago. Its usage has dropped. I do want to recommend this bill to the House and in doing so I want to return to first principles. This member’s bill sits on the principles of making law that is accessible clear and up to date. It is about keeping our statute book up to date and to that end this bill is very important. It is important too as it brings clarity to the issues of relationships and property. Other laws are well in place to protect Kiwis in this matter and I think that is one key message for those listening in. 
The repeal of the Joint Family Homes Act is not going to revolutionise this country. It is not going to make society better in one bold stroke but it is a small step in the right direction. So Mr Speaker and colleagues in the House I ask for your support as we move this bill in its first reading. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 When the Joint Family Homes Act 1950 the predecessor to the legislation that would be repealed by this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill was enacted the then National Government described that Act as part of its programme to reinforce Christian family values. What the current Act does as we have heard from the previous speaker Simon O’Connor is allow a married couple that lives in a house owned by either or both of them to have the house vested in both of them as joint tenants. Originally there was a great deal of benefit in doing this because it would save potential liabilities for death duties to unsecured creditors for gift duty and in respect of other anomalies that have now been excised from the statute book. Most of these advantages simply do not exist any more except perhaps for some of the creditors protection and perhaps some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. 
That is why in December 2001 the Law Commission recommended that the Act be removed from the statute book. The Law Commission points out in its report that the legislation discriminates against single owners; it is anomalous given the way in which our society has evolved; it discriminates against those in de facto relationships; the protection that it provides against creditors is limited; and it takes into account neither the differences in property values around the country nor the fact that trusts are often used on a contemporary basis to protect against creditors. 
The Law Commission report is an excellent report. The bill replicates almost exactly the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Labour Opposition will be delighted for those reasons to support it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee and we will listen to the evidence given at the select committee carefully. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
:  
Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Tena tatou e te Whare. Whakanuia Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us the House. Celebrate Maori Language Week. 
] 
I would like to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor the member for Tamaki on his achievement in bringing this measure the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to the House. It is a significant matter for any MP to advance a member’s bill but to be doing so in his first year of office is particularly meritorious. Mr O’Connor has made an excellent start to his parliamentary career and if I may say so the people of Tamaki made an excellent choice in sending him here. Me whakanuia e tatou. [ 
We need to celebrate it. 
] 
I would also like to commend the Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic team for a stunning victory in last weekend’s ANZ netball championship over the Melbourne Vixens. In fact I would like to describe their superb fightback to clinch the title in the dying moments at some length but I suspect that some humourless representative of a less talented region would object on the grounds that the Magic’s brilliance may not be fundamental to the core provisions of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. 
One might argue that Mr O’Connor has demonstrated the stunning leadership of Laura Langman in triumphing in the lottery that is a parliamentary member’s bill ballot or that he has reflected the coaching expertise of a Noeline Taurua in ensuring that all members of our caucus are well prepared and understand how we must contribute to the team effort in the course of this first reading debate—perhaps the never-say-die tenacity of a Casey Williams. Homai te pakipaki to them all. We are so proud of our girls and their achievements. But I do note that their performance was tinged with sadness as we all felt for Irene van Dyk who suffered the death of her mother just days before the final. Truly those last goals that secured the title were for Irene’s mother and we send our aroha and prayers to the family as they prepare for the funeral this week. 
But before I suffer the devastating interception of a Leana de Bruin seeking to bring this analogy to a close let me instead offer on behalf of this House my very best wishes to the home side which will surely prevail in its crusade against the hopes of the south at the Waikato Stadium this Friday night. Kia kaha. Go the Chiefs. I know the whole House will be willing them all on—or at least those of us with two eyes and a sense of destiny. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this is a relatively wide-ranging speech and there was a point I think when we were playing the Australians where everyone was behind the member but I think now he is being absolutely controversial in his attacks on Canterbury. It should stop and he should get back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member for his views and indicate to the member on my right that I had indicated several times that he should speak to the bill. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence. I am sure the people of the Waikato will be reminded from that point of order about why they sent Mr Mallard slightly south but yes I appreciate that I must get to the point. 
As you may have gathered I was really hoping that I might have got to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. Had I done so I would also have referred to the Law Commission’s 2001 report  
The Future of the Joint Family Homes Act 
. In his introductory remarks the member for Tamaki acknowledged the commission’s report which observed that “The advantages flowing from registration as a joint family home were at the commencement of the scheme these: a substantial death duty saving; a degree of protection against unsecured creditors … the security for a spouse not already on the title (usually the wife) of being able on becoming a co-owner to thwart dispositions of the property of which she disapproved (as improvident for example); the convenience of being able as part of financial planning schemes (usually but not invariably tax driven) to vest their homes in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty; and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates …”. 
 The commission then concluded—and I remind the House that this was more than a decade ago: “In the half-century since the coming into force of the Joint Family Homes Act 1950 most of these advantages have evaporated.” Death duties estate duties stamp duty and gift duty are all now abolished. In relation to protection from creditors the Law Commission noted that registration as a joint family home did not often make a difference in the way the estates of bankrupts were disposed of. 
Jumping ahead to 2012 it is clear that this Act we are considering repealing is discriminatory as it excludes de facto partners civil union partners and those who live alone. So for many reasons most of which have already been outlined by the member in charge of the bill this Act is now redundant. I commend the member for Tamaki for acting on the Law Commission’s long-deferred recommendation and bringing it to the House. Kua mutu kai raro. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I just want to speak briefly to the introduction of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to also join in the spirit I guess—I am hoping that there will be a similar response to my member’s bill which is next on the Order Paper—and to say that we will certainly support the bill to select committee. It does raise an issue that has been dealt with substantially by the Law Commission so therefore it is a very good bill for the member Simon O’Connor to be introducing. I think I heard him say that the first time he went down for a ballot he had it drawn. I say congratulations to that member. I have been here a very long time. I do not often get bills on the Order Paper but I have got one next and I do hope that I am able to encourage members on that side of the House to support it at least to select committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So he’s scoring at 100 percent—that’s pretty good. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is actually not bad. It is actually not bad on every level. He has scored at 100 percent. I just thought I would note for the record what others have mentioned—not to traverse the ground about where the legislation originally came from but simply to comment on the one remaining element of protection that it does offer and that is protection against creditors. When one looks at the detail of the Law Commission report around that remaining protection though it actually is more stated than real. It is less of substance in terms of a remaining protection. In terms of the rights of spouses or their survivor they are protected from bankruptcy in execution but the rights of secured creditors remain unaffected. So it really is not quite a substantial protection. 
The other thing is that the specified sum which is fixed from time to time by Order in Council is currently $82000 for the joint family home—an amount that was fixed in 1996. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I do not know that there are many places where one can purchase a house for $82000 or anywhere near it but I certainly know that property prices have been increasing in Christchurch quite considerably having been recently in the property market myself. I think—and this is going back in my memory—we signed up for a joint family home on the basis that you just signed up for a joint family home. There really was not any substantial reason for so doing. I think the time for this legislation to stay on our books has probably gone and that is certainly the conclusion the Law Commission reached in December 2001. 
I congratulate the member on his success and look forward to some positive support for my member’s bill which is next on the Order Paper. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 E te Rangatira o te Whakaruruhau nei te hunga koko tataki me te kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori taketake o te whenua nei tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To the Speaker of this House the witty speakers and the matter that relates to Maori Language Week the indigenous language of this country acknowledgments to you all. 
] 
I am happy to take a short call on the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to support my colleagues in articulating the reasons why the Green Party will vote to support this bill. I would like to begin by offering my sympathies to the bill’s sponsor Simon O’Connor who appears to have drawn somewhat of the short straw with this bill and has very selflessly put forward what really should be a Government bill—and should have been a Government bill many years ago—as a member’s bill in his name. I guess one thing we can all celebrate is that this bill is no longer cluttering up the ballot and we can look forward to some bolder and more interesting and innovative bills coming from the member in future. Long may his luck with the ballot continue. 
 As my colleagues will outline the Green Party will be supporting this bill which repeals the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. This change is long overdue and we note that the Law Commission first recommended its repeal as long ago as 2001. So it is very much a case of better late than never. 
Under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 a dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either or both of them could be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants. At the time the advantages of this provision were considered to be savings in death duty a protection against unsecured creditors security for the spouse not on the title—which in those days was usually the wife—the ability to vest a home in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates. 
In the nearly 50 years since the legislation was enacted most of those advantages have since evaporated. Most of them were superseded by the Matrimonial Property Act in 1976 namely the provisions related to death duty shared title and gift and stamp duty. The only outstanding benefit as we have just heard from the member Lianne Dalziel is protection from creditors and some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. The Law Commission concluded in 2001 that these were not sufficient to retain this legislation. 
What I would like to add to the debate which the Law Commission did outline are the issues with discrimination on the basis of marital status that are entrenched in this outdated bill. As we know in the intervening years there has been a trend away from formal legal marriage towards de facto relationships which have since been recognised in law. And as I know probably better than many members as my partner and I are happily united in civil union we also now have the option of civil unions in New Zealand and have done since 2004. 
The 1964 legislation has never been updated to take this into account. So what we have is a prima facie case where under the Human Rights Act 1993 discrimination on the grounds of marital status is prohibited and it is clear that to afford a protection against the claims of creditors to married couples that is unavailable to anyone else is discriminatory. That alone should be reason enough for the repeal of this legislation. 
The Green Party is very happy to vote in support of this bill and we look forward to the future contributions in the members’ ballot from the member Simon O’Connor. Kia ora. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Like many other members of the House who have been legal practitioners I have acted in the registration of so many joint family homes over the years that I have certainly lost count of them. The Joint Family Homes Act was a very very popular piece of legislation and it was a very very popular thing for people to do. I might say that it was a nice little earner as well for those of us in the legal profession. So that was an advantage all by itself. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Very candid of you Denis—very candid of you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Thank you; thank you so much. It was of course fundamentally a way in which a husband and wife could become the joint owners of a property and become the legal and beneficial owners thereof. It was a convenient and inexpensive way to reflect the real interest of both the husband and the wife in the family home. It offered some protection against creditors but not very much and I do not think that was ever a major reason for people registering joint family homes. It meant a transmission by survivorship if one of them died; that was important to them. It confirmed equal rights to occupy and use a property and that was pretty important especially to wives who liked to see this being done for obvious reasons. It prevented alienation of the interests of either party while both were living—again very popular especially with wives. It did not affect the capacity to mortgage sell or charge with the agreement of both parties. 
It was not property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act but the main reason was that it was a transaction that was exempt from stamp duties while they were applied from estate duties while they were applied and until relatively recently from gift duty which has now also been abolished. Now that those things have been abolished the popularity of registering joint family homes is of course reduced. It is sometimes said that there is a lingering advantage in joint family homes with the protection against creditors. But as I said before I do not believe that was ever a primary consideration for most people who registered joint family homes. So the loss of that very limited protection which was not a primary reason for joint family homes will not really be missed and it is not a reason for opposing this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. 
The joint family homes legislation and facility was very popular but it is no longer necessary. One of the disadvantages of it of course was that it was discriminatory in that it did not apply to de facto partners and that it did not apply to single owners. It has been superseded of course by matrimonial legislation which provides the same facility in a different way. So we in New Zealand First agree that the Joint Family Homes Act is redundant and we will certainly support this bill going on to the select committee. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Tena tatou e te Whare. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak briefly on this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is wonderful that occasionally we get the chance to remove legislation from the statute book that is no longer necessary. Normally we are making legislation; this is an opportunity to remove redundant legislation and I want to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor who very early in his career has achieved the opportunity to bring a member’s bill to the House—well done Simon. 
As we know the purpose of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The bill effectively seeks to tidy up New Zealand’s existing legislation on relationship law and to ensure it is up to date and current. It is important to consider 1964. What was happening in 1964? Well in music the Beatles were storming the USA with their tour to the USA and took the top five places in the  
Billboard 
 Hot 100—the top five places in the  
Billboard 
 Hot 100. I can see Denis O’Rourke over there thinking is it “Can’t Buy Me Love”? Yes Denis it was. “Twist and Shout” Mr Mallard? Yes. “She Loves You” Parekura. That is right. “I Want to Hold Your Hand” who would be that? Yes Rino. And “Please Please Me” Charles Chauvel. Those were the top five in the  
Billboard 
 Hot 100 in 1964 when this legislation that we are repealing was enacted. 
What else was happening in 1964? In 1964 we had the Tokyo Olympics Games where Peter Snell won a gold medal in the 800 and 1500 metres. Peter Snell achieved notoriety and fame in New Zealand for the rest of his life as a double gold medallist in Tokyo. Nikita Khrushchev whom many of us may have seen pictures of banging his shoe on the table of the United Nations was mysteriously deposed from leadership of the Soviet Union. And Barbara Hepworth that well-known internationally renowned sculptor unveiled  
Single Form 
 her sculpture outside the UN headquarters. Andy Warhol of course produced his signature five Marilyns series. 
 In 1964—and there are some in the House who can probably remember—there were droves of schoolboys and schoolgirls wearing caps and berets going to school on bicycles. Yes it did happen—it did happen. Guys who erred in school cadets which was another event in 1964 that many took part in were asked to run around the field at school carrying a .303 rifle above their heads or if it was outside of school cadets and they were in the classroom they were often given a couple of cuts with a cane. 
That was then and this is now. I mention this: in the family we are talking about dad probably went to the pub there was early 6 o’clock closing and he would get home to the wife. That was another thing in 1964 that was extant then. Of course Austin Mitchell wrote about these times in his classic tome  
The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise 
. But that was then and this is now and in 2001 the Law Commission advised the repeal of the Act noting that the public has ample alternative legal devices at its disposal in its absence. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora e te whanau. Kia ora Mr Speaker. Firstly I congratulate sincerely the member Simon O’Connor on his Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill being picked out of the ballot. I also have a bill in there—for a couple of years now—and it takes a while to get the luck that that member has had so congratulations. 
The background to this bill is very simple. Some time before 2001 the then Minister asked the Law Commission to have a look at this area at whether enough changes had occurred and whether we needed the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The Law Commission went away and did a detailed piece of work. Clearly people who have spoken today have read that report. After that examination the commission concluded that there were only two serious bits remaining that needed to be talked about: protection from creditors—and other members have talked about that—and savings in legal costs in developing joint family homes. The Law Commission then had a look at both of those and concluded that there was nothing there that required the Act to stay on the statute book. In 2001 its report said that the Act should go and alongside that the provision in the Family Protection Act that also is repealed by this particular bill also needed to go. 
So this bill is quite simple and clearly we support it but not the arguments that the members opposite have presented for this particular bill. In a sense this is Simon O’Connor’s Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. This bill is identical to that one. Somebody in the National Party has decided: “Look those backbenchers need to get their act into gear. We have got to give them something to do so we will dream up bills that really will not make one iota of difference to contemporary issues facing New Zealand.” 
Tim Macindoe 
: The Law Commission reported it— 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Not one iota Mr Macindoe—not one. So this bill was put in the ballot. I do think the members speaking on this bill today are far more fortunate; they are in a much better place than when they were asked to defend the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. At least Simon O’Connor has presented an argument. I remember that on the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill members opposite gathered in large number. That bill seemed to have been designed only to pick the spirits up of the member who had proposed that particular bill. At least there is something serious about this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill in the sense that the member Simon O’Connor can present an argument and he has presented it as well. 
But look at the argument he has presented. This bill is the Government’s attempt to actually have a clean legislative slate so to speak—to clear out legislation. This bill is its attempt. By golly if this is it then I am sorry but there is not much left in the tank. And there are so many other more important things to do. I wish the members would think about that. Of course the private—[ 
Interruption 
] Ordinarily Mr Macindoe an omnibus bill would be brought in to strip to clean out these things and would put them all together. That is what ought to have happened but it did not. 
But look at the difference between what these members opposite are now presenting using the member’s bill process to do it and what this side of the House is doing. Here we are today discussing this bill which will not make an iota of difference to anybody’s life today. 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It will not—not to anybody’s life today. But on the other side of the House here we have just had passed—the Government was defeated—a bill about full recognition of holidays. That was what somebody from this side of the House had thought through. It will make a difference to the lives of people. Again maybe later on this evening we will be discussing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Here also a member has thought it through. But no the members opposite would sooner discuss the equivalent of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill—bills that do not make any difference at all bills that do not address contemporary issues bills that just keep backbenchers busy. Mr Macindoe has not had one picked out of the ballot. I wonder what it would be. Maybe some kind of thing about—I do not know—houses? I do not know. It might be a housing one Mr Macindoe. There might be something about housing that the member might want to talk about. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We used to have a good MP in Hamilton West. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: That is right and he did a lot of good work. So I ask Mr Macindoe to put forward something serious that makes a difference. But we will be supporting this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee and let us listen to the arguments. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this first reading of Simon O’Connor’s bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is about repealing old and tired legislation and cleaning up our statute book. Existing legislation once it has served its purpose needs to be repealed. Certainly the 40-year-old Joint Family Homes Act 1964 fits that category and this bill will do exactly that. We have heard that the Law Commission recommended that it should be repealed over a decade ago. I am delighted that Simon has the opportunity to do just that today. The world has certainly moved on from 40 years ago. The Joint Family Homes Act 1964 is out of date and has been superseded by legislation and certainly modern practice. The Law Commission noted that even in 2001 the Act had largely lost most of the commercial and social importance that it once may have had. 
The 1964 Act was originally intended to protect the homes of married couples from the claims of unsecured creditors and from death duties by allowing a dwelling occupied by a couple to be registered as a joint home. Of course the 1964 Act had many benefits which we have heard about today. Briefly they were savings from death duty protection against unsecured creditors security for the spouse who was not already on the title on becoming a co-owner avoiding stamp or gift duty and legal costs in the case of very small estates. The Law Commission as I said before said those advantages had been superseded. Indeed stamp duty was abolished in 1999 and estate duty in 1992 and more recently gift duty was abolished in 2011. The Act has not kept up with modern-day practices. Back in 1964 marriage was certainly the norm; increasingly there have been more and more de facto relationships. The Law Commission report in 2001 said there had been a big shift away from formal legal marriage. In 1996 there were almost 240000 people living in a de facto relationship which was an increase of 46 percent since 1991. Over that time there had definitely been a decline in the number of marriages. Certainly it is interesting to note that since 2001 to the present day the absolute number of marriages has remained pretty static despite the increase in the population. Of course we have had civil unions which is something that was not around in 1964. Since 2005 the number of civil unions has gone from 278 up to 377 in 2011. 
The rationale for supporting this bill is clearly obvious. I am delighted and I am sure it will get the support of the House so congratulations to Simon. It is important that legislation and its current purpose remain valid and it is time this 40-year-old Act is repealed. I commend this bill to the House. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 E te Mangai o te Whare tena koe. Tuarua ki nga mema o to tatou Whare tena koutou katoa. Tuatoru mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori na reira tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you the Speaker of the House. Secondly greetings to you all members of our House. Thirdly acknowledgments to Maori Language Week so greetings to you all collectively. 
] 
I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party regarding the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. As my colleague Holly Walker said earlier the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee so we can have a closer look at it. I would like to congratulate the member Simon O’Connor on bringing a fairly simple but sensible bill to the attention of the House though I must say it is troubling that the Government is unable to implement simple recommendations of the Law Commission and instead leaves it to its backbench members in their capacity as personal members to undertake what really should be core Government business. I believe that Chris Auchinvole has a similar member’s bill implementing Law Commission recommendations about habeas corpus which will be coming up before the House very soon. 
So this bill seeks to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 as we have heard and replace it with nothing at all because the world has moved on and moved past the need for this Act. The Act in question enables the dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either or both of them to be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants by a reasonably cheap and simple procedure. At the time we heard what the ostensible benefits of the Act were but the Law Commission noted that of the five principal benefits of the original legislation the only remaining ones were some protection against creditors and some savings in legal costs but only in a minor sense because they benefited only married couples and therefore were discriminatory against everyone else. 
Offering a benefit to traditionally married couples and not to single homeowners or those in non-traditional relationships or living situations is potentially discriminatory and certainly does not keep pace with our evolving understanding of what can constitute a relationship. It is our hope that this bill in removing discrimination against non-traditional families is one step—of many—in our evolving understanding. We would be thrilled if non-discrimination were extended to adoption laws allowing more people to become parents and if it were extended to marriage equality. 
It is a shame that this Government’s progress seems to be driven from the backbenches and wider party membership sometimes in conjunction with other political parties and lacks the commitment of the front bench. Although it may not be a priority for the Prime Minister for example there is most certainly a clamour in New Zealand to formally modernise its laws to formally recognise other relationships. I also think that there is a lost opportunity for this Government to modernise our approach to residential developments and the laws around them. If we are to overcome many of the challenges that we are facing including in housing affordability in transport and in debt we are going to need to modernise the different laws that affect residential development. At the moment the real estate market is not responding to demand because of significant market failure. That is something that the Government could be addressing but unfortunately it is not seeking to address that. 
What I am talking about for example is liberalising the parking requirements in district plans making sure that planning rules support types of development that are not limited to single stand-alone family houses on quarter-acre sections which have been unintentionally subsidised I think by the traditional approach to planning. Also bank lending practices tend to be biased towards single stand-alone home ownership and incentivise only property investors to purchase apartments or townhouses so that leads to a low quality of development and a real shortage in the supply of high-quality high-amenity dwellings that are not stand-alone family homes. 
So although this bill is seeking to modernise one particular law and remove discrimination I think that the Government could turn its mind to a whole lot of other factors that would enable New Zealand to respond to the challenges facing it. 
The Green Party agrees with Mr O’Connor that the principal Act is no longer necessary. We look forward to taking part in the select committee hearings on this bill and gaining full appreciation of the bill before us that as we can reasonably imagine will be passed into law. Thank you. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take this call in reply. May I acknowledge Ms Genter’s last speech. I am always amazed at her ability to get the matter of parking into any debate question or conversation. It really is quite the skill. I suppose it is related because most homes do have an area to park. It is a question that was often put up: why does one park on a driveway? I just leave you with that particular question there. I think it was George Carlin who came up with that. 
I want to just thank the House for the generosity in this debate and the support that has been demonstrated. I think generosity in the House around bills is important but I want to draw attention to the fact that this is a member’s bill; this is not a Government bill. Part of our democratic structure and process is to allow members by their choice and volition to introduce bills into the House for discussion. Although I noted in my initial speech that the Hon Jo Goodhew had this bill the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill initially I was very happy to put my name to it. It was something that I took my time to consider. 
Again it is for two I suppose simple reasons. The first which has been highlighted by my colleagues and others here is the removal of discrimination. I think that is an important element and I am very pleased as the MP for Tamaki to be involved with that. I am pleased that the Green Party in particular has acknowledged that. I must say to the member Holly Walker that I was not thinking of her in particular but I am most pleased that this is of benefit to her and her partner as well. But the other part is again that principle that our statute book needs to be clear and concise and about good law. I think that is a really important aspect for me as a legislator coming into this House. 
I have noted the concern from some members about whether this is going to be the zenith of my career and so forth—concern that I might have been put up to this. Well I have good news for the House—good news. I see this as just the first step on the ladder. As I noted in my speech it is very important to learn the process and to take a bill through. Fortunately between these two ears there are certainly plenty more ideas and thoughts for bills to come. But when it comes to the luck of the next ballot we will have to see how that works. We will have to continue maybe to be in Government and proceed that way as well. I do thank the honourable members for that concern but yes the news for the House is that I intend—with the good graces of my electorate—to be around for a while and progress more legislation. 
Turning back then to the repeal bill—well actually before I turn to the bill I should acknowledge Dr Cam Calder’s mention of 1964. It was very useful Dr Calder seeing as I was not around in 1964—or 1974 for that matter. It was a useful and quick history lesson—[ 
Interruption 
] Scurrilous really. We will not draw that out. But the repeal bill fortunately in 1984—I think something else happened there as well. 
Coming back to the bill itself I have just a few messages for those who are following this debate with interest. The Joint Family Homes Act of 1964 importantly—for those listening at home—was only for unsecured creditors it was a limited amount of money that covered your home and it was an Act that is now redundant due to the removal of things like death duties stamp duties gift duties and so forth. It was an Act whose time ended many years ago. 
I commend the Law Commission and those involved for putting forward the recommendations in 2001 those who translated it into a bill before the House Jo Goodhew for originally sponsoring it and colleagues on all sides of the House for the veracity of the debate on this bill. I think that today this bill will be the highlight. I am not sure how members will cope after this but I am looking forward to that debate. I thank you all once again. I recommend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration provided I have the support of the very generous members on the other side of the House who have recently been speaking on another bill. The reason that I am hoping that there will be support in this House for this bill is probably that the pressure for this legislation has diminished as a result of the settlement between ANZ and ING who were the original reason for this particular measure and the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission and ANZ and ING came to a settlement back in June 2010 which was after I had drafted this particular bill. I was not as fortunate as the previous speaker Simon O’Connor was on his bill having had it drawn from the ballot at the first instance. I reinstated it into the ballot after the general election and it was then that I was fortunate enough to have it drawn. 
However the issue that came to the fore in that particular case as I say has been addressed with the settlement but does not prevent the same thing from happening again which is why I think the bill is important and why I hope that members opposite will agree to refer it to a select committee. I know that some members were mistakenly of the view that this matter is now addressed in the Securities Commission legislation and the Financial Markets Authority legislation but this particular situation arose out of having to preclude the response of the two particular regulators which were the Banking Ombudsman and the Commerce Commission. The legislation surrounding them does not provide the same protections that are available under the securities legislation. I did just want to make that point because I would be very disappointed if people did not support the bill based on a misapprehension of the particular issue. 
There are a lot of people in this House now who probably do not have the same history around this legislation; certainly it got a lot of publicity at the time. Some members of the House will not have heard about the ING-ANZ Frozen Funds Group Trust which was established and one of its leaders a guy called Gerard Prinsen. I actually brought a photo to the House. This is a photo that sits on my desk. It has “Dalziel’s Bridge” written on it. It is actually a photograph; I have no idea where Dalziel’s Bridge is. If anyone does know where it is it would be very nice to go and see it. It could be Scotland and there it would be called “Dee-elle’s” Bridge. But anyway the reason that I always thought that this photograph was kind of amusing was because my press secretary always used to say “Build a bridge.” which was her way of saying “Get over it.” But the message that came with this photograph—and this was presented to me by Gerard Prinsen—was that the strongest bridges are built while the rivers run dry. The point is that there are times when we have an opportunity in this House to take up a case on behalf of a group of people who have been unfairly treated or who have found themselves in a situation where they look to Parliament for a solution because they cannot find that solution within the community or within themselves. 
What this bill does is be a bridge; it is designed to be a bridge. It bridges the gap between those who have the power to impose intolerable conditions on others when a settlement is being negotiated and to say it is a fair deal and those who have no alternative but to accept the offer while it is on the table. And why do they have to accept the offer? Because those offers are always made with a deadline and if the offer is not accepted by the time the deadline comes then where do you stand? Does that really leave people in a position where they are bargaining on a fair basis? That does not actually stop a hard bargain being driven certainly even by a person in a dominant position. What this bill is designed to do is to stop them being let off the hook for behaviour that does not meet the legal standard imposed by a regulator—in this particular case the Banking Ombudsman or the Commerce Commission. 
I think the most difficult experience that I had as a Minister of Commerce was the sense of helplessness that I felt as I watched the inevitable domino effect that flowed from the original finance company failures in 2006. The fact that my predecessor had already begun a consultation process in terms of the regulation of financial advisers and that I had already released nine discussion documents collectively known as the Review of Financial Products and Providers before the first string of finance company collapses occurred really paled into insignificance against the extent of the losses that people had suffered. And it was not like the proverbial run on the bank either. Fixed-term investments meant that thousands of people literally held their breath until they could take their money out. Of course once they could take their money out there was the second string of failures beginning with the collapse of Bridgecorp in 2007. 
I received report after report after report of people facing individual financial ruin as a result of an investment decision in one of these companies. It became very apparent to me that it was not greed that drove the investment decisions—I think greed had a place but it was at the other end of the spectrum—but rather a lack of knowledge about the nature of the risk that people face. I just want to quote from the media release that the Commerce Commission put out at the point of settlement: “It is important that consumers are able to make properly informed decisions based on clear and accurate information. Investors decide where to invest their money based largely on their appetite for risk. Throughout our investigation investors have told us that they would not have invested in these funds if the actual risk had been represented accurately”. That was what was so fundamentally wrong. 
The examples of the lack of integrity in the sector have really been the most appalling aspect of what has occurred and although commentators rail against the failure to regulate fast enough I have to ask the question of where the major exposés were that led people to be aware of the nature of the risk that they were facing. And the truth is that a lot of people in the media were silenced by threats of legal action from those who did not want to have the real risk exposed. So we are dealing with powerful organisations well resourced up against the little guy. In the case of the media they are even able to prevent them from publicising the risk that people face. 
I just wanted to say that because I did want a context for the legislation and I just want to say what was objectionable about the ANZ-ING offer. It said this: “By accepting this Offer you agree to surrender settle and release all other rights or claims you may have against certain parties in connection with the relevant Fund … including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person. … It also means you are agreeing not to benefit from any claim made by any other person in connection with the Funds …”. A release disclosure document was annexed to the offer letter and this contained a list of those covered by the release—ING ANZ New Zealand Guardian Trust and every single one of the financial advisers who had advised on the investment in the fund—and referred specifically to investigations being undertaken by the Banking Ombudsman and the Commerce Commission. The question that was really raised for me was whether as a matter of public policy companies that may have transgressed the regulatory framework that is designed to protect investors should be allowed to make a settlement conditional on these terms. 
So this is the question that this bill seeks to answer. It may not be the perfect answer and there may be elements of it that the select committee would like to address. I am perfectly open to that. What I do want this House to do though is to refer it to the select committee so that these people who did not have their day in court can essentially have their day in court in front of the select committee. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand and speak on this member’s bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill presented by the Hon Lianne Dalziel who was chair of the Commerce Committee in the last parliamentary term. It was a very good committee which was able to work very well together. But before I come to what I want to say I would like to say this. Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Tena tatou e te Whare. Whakanuitia Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us the House. Celebrate Maori Language Week. 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No that’s wrong. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: It is very good to celebrate Maori Language Week. The honourable member across the way obviously feels that he is incredibly fluent and knows everything. I cannot wait to hear—I cannot wait to hear—him stand and greet us in Te Reo. 
This bill was introduced by Lianne Dalziel in April 2010 perhaps at a time when there was a need for it but perhaps there is not the need now as she has commented on because of the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011 which has come into place and which established the Financial Markets Authority on 1 May 2011. The authority has been in operation for just over a year and by all accounts from what I hear in the sector it is achieving very good results and has certainly been in this first year a well-respected authority and able to bring through the regulation—and enforcement of those regulations of course—that is necessary. National does not support this bill because the Financial Markets Authority is doing a very good job of covering the aspects that the member has raised. The current law is sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of legal settlements and there is no need for legislative change. 
 The instance that the honourable member Hon Lianne Dalziel raised regarding the ING situation of course did take some considerable time and attention of the Commerce Committee. I believe that back in that time there was very genuine concern about the matters that the member raised. We were very pleased to be reported to by the Commerce Commission on the satisfactory resolution to the claims of people who had invested with ING. Indeed the Commerce Commission acknowledged the cooperation of ANZ National Bank and ING throughout its investigation of that situation and the settlement discussions. The Commerce Commission was able in its capacity to bring through a resolution that it said was the biggest resolution the most successful resolution it has undertaken in its history. That does go to show that it was effective and brought quite a degree of satisfaction to those members of the ING Frozen Fund Group Trust. 
The purpose for which the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill was drafted—and back in that time we acknowledge that there was genuine purpose—related to concerns over the compensation received by ING investors and they have been resolved. We now have a situation where through the Financial Markets Authority we have a very good regulator which is able to step into situations and bring some direction and some resolution. We also know that the corporate trustees that act as watchdogs in these issuer funds have progressed in terms of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Act which came into force on 1 October 2011 whereby back at that time all current corporate trustees had to apply for a licence within 1 month of that enactment in order to receive a 1-year temporary licence. 
So the supervision of the supervisors—the licence that they have to apply for to the Financial Markets Authority—brings in a regulatory system that we believe is more than adequate to meet the needs and the challenges and concerns that the member has raised. To the extent that the bill was drafted as a response to a problem the action taken by regulators demonstrates that there was no such issue that required resolution nor do we believe that this is a widespread issue that requires further legislation. We believe that matters legislation and regulation and the enforcers of those regulations are working very satisfactorily. 
We also know that for example yesterday in this House two further commerce bills to strengthen our finance sector passed their first readings. These are coming to the Commerce Committee tomorrow. What one of them does of course is ensure that there is no opportunity for overseas people to set up New Zealand companies and use those for nefarious and criminal activities. That bill the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill is strengthening our robustness and ensuring that our reputation as a country stands up. Of course the first reading of the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was also passed so that we could ensure that there is integrity in terms of competition in this country. 
Over these last few years the National-led Government has been working very strongly under the initial leadership of the Hon Simon Power and now the leadership of the Hon Craig Foss to bring some real robustness to our financial markets. Establishing that one-stop shop the Financial Markets Authority is the real kingpin that will bring a sharper focus on enforcing the law. Bringing that tighter oversight is absolutely necessary and essential so that investors in this country can have confidence. With the financial companies’ collapses which is what this bill is essentially looking at in terms of some aspects of that—the contracting-out component particularly—one of the things that that did in terms of people losing their life-savings is erode confidence. Look we know that confidence is absolutely essential in order for investment to come into this country so that business can have capital that would continue to see resources come to business and the market place. 
So our considered opinion is that we already have in place legislation we already have in place entities and we already have in place changes to our legislative regulatory framework that are going to address all the issues that the honourable member’s bill is proposing. At this point in time I would commend the member for what she has done and just say that she was a very good chair of that committee and obviously has a lot of experience but we are not supporting this bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The problem with the speech that we have just heard is that it is a record of a number of measures that have been passed or are under contemplation by the House that would absolutely improve our regulatory environment and confidence in the markets but none of the measures listed by the member who has resumed his seat would address the particular problem that this bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill is aimed at. 
I do ask members opposite to think carefully about their position on this legislation. It will not do to oppose it on the basis that we have just heard from Jonathan Young because the problem that Lianne Dalziel has identified in respect of this bill could still happen under the current legislative framework. A corporate with a high degree of market power could still write in the middle of an investigation by a regulator to a group of investors who were out of pocket and say something like this: “By accepting this Offer you agree to surrender settle and release all other rights or claims you may have against certain parties in connection with the relevant Fund … including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person. … It also means you are agreeing not to benefit from any claim made by any other person in connection with the Funds ….”. 
It should not be possible for a corporate to be able to write to individual mum and dad investors—that is a term that the other side is very fond of—in those terms in the middle of an investigation and be able to shut the investigation down effectively because the individual investors fear quite justifiably that if they do not agree either they will get nothing or they will have to wait years and years and go through litigation and expense in order to recover what is their right. Even today with the oversight of the Financial Markets Authority and with the improved regulatory framework in the finance area which my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel began the process of putting in place—and I have to say she knows it as well as anybody I know and knows it better than most—this sort of behaviour would still be possible. 
I just want members opposite to bear in mind this: markets work effectively only where market failure is not allowed—where there is not allowed to be exerted a gross imbalance of power by those who are able to do it. All that Lianne Dalziel is trying to do by this measure—it is a considered measure it is a carefully crafted measure and it is a measure that she has given a lot of thought to based on her experience as a very successful and well-regarded Minister of Commerce and as Jonathan Young said the well-regarded chair of the Commerce Committee of this House in the last term—is redress the imbalance that I have identified. 
Jonathan Young as I said read out a list of legislation most of which members on this side supported because it is good legislation. It carries on the institutional agenda that we began to try to strengthen confidence in the financial markets. But the fact remains that none of those provisions would remedy the evil that this bill is designed to remedy. None of those pieces of legislation would fix the problem that Lianne Dalziel has identified. I urge National Party members to reconsider their position on this legislation because if they do not it is our duty to make sure that all those mum and dad investors who were out of pocket through exercises of grossly imbalanced market power such as the one referred to in the explanatory note understand who is on their side and who is not. 
Please members opposite think carefully about this. You want to be on the side of decency. You want to be on the side of mum and dad investors. If that is the case you will support this legislation. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to expand the Act in order to exclude attempts to grant an individual distribution of any proceeds of any settlement to one individual of choice. 
The collapse of the financial sector has been distressing for thousands of New Zealanders. Many lost part or all of their savings. Most New Zealanders know someone who has been affected by the collapse of financial institutions. The current law is sufficient to deal with legitimacy. This bill could be detrimental to New Zealanders and could deter settlement by the parties of civil disputes. Settlements provide parties with the ability to resolve disputes and to come to decisive conclusions to the benefit of all concerned. The bill also avoids the prohibitive cost of taking settlements to court. 
The National-led Government is focused on creating strong economies and improving the job market which will in turn provide financial security to families. Strong capital markets provide a vital source of finance to help our businesses grow thereby creating jobs. Yesterday two commerce bills were read for the first time that aim to strengthen our financial sectors. These were included in National’s 120-point economic development plan and are a priority for this Government. National will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Nga mihi o te ahiahi ki a koutou. I am pleased to take a call to speak on the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill and indeed to speak in support of what we believe is a useful and a still very necessary bill despite the protestations of the Government speakers so far. 
The Greens are not always persuaded that it is a good idea to resort to a legislative solution for a one-off event or one-off problem. Often you simply end up with the sound of stable doors slamming. You end up with legislation that is unnecessary—something that is trying to deal with a problem that has already passed. But as Mr Chauvel has already articulated this is still a very live problem. The mischief that this bill seeks to remedy to resolve is still very much alive. The possibility is that we could once again see something along the lines of the ING-ANZ issue or event. There is a very real possibility that the very uneven distribution of power could put us in a situation again where the well-being of the investment of large numbers of small investors is at risk and where those people are effectively obliged to gamble on what might be the outcome of a deal essentially being offered to them by a bank by an insurance company or by whatever the organisation may be. 
We ought not to have to argue for the principle of avoiding a situation where people or organisations can contract out of their legal responsibilities. That principle you would think would be generally acknowledged. We see it in the Consumer Guarantees Act where suppliers cannot contract out of their obligations to consumers. It is a different situation with trade relationships clearly. But the key principle is that people cannot be obliged or even if they think they have contracted out that there is a legal protection to avoid that happening. We see it in the Consumer Guarantees Act as I have said. We see references to it in the Fair Trading Act—the extension of that being the unfortunate practice of people being persuaded to buy these quite valueless extended warranties for example. There is a well-embedded legal principle of not allowing people to contract out of responsibility. 
Effectively that is all this bill seeks to do—to make a very minor amendment albeit a significant one to a piece of legislation so that people are no longer as I say at some future time put in a position where they might have to second-guess whether taking the deal that is currently on the table will leave them better or worse off than waiting for some legal process some regulatory process to work its way through and come to some sort of resolution. 
Clearly that statement would be opposed by those who might be on the other side of that equation. I was interested to note a newspaper article in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 from the time when this bill was first presented. A gentleman from the ANZ the managing director of private banking and wealth—a splendid title—was concerned about the so-called retrospective nature of this bill. He said that it might “create uncertainty for business if regulatory and legal requirements could be subject to change”. He said that “Under the bill there would be no incentive for parties to agree to out-of-court settlements because agreements to settle disputes would never be full and final”. That is all very well but it rather overlooks the fact that this situation only occurred in a case of what was at best gross negligence and in fact—as was described earlier—was the failure of a company entrusted with people’s investments to operate to an appropriate legal or indeed ethical standard. The best protection for companies holding investments against being taken to task in this sort of thing is simply to act legally responsibly and ethically in these cases. The notion that this would somehow disadvantage the large corporate organisations is simply laughable in fact. 
The Frozen Funds Group Trust or movement if you like was commented on. I think its website has some interesting and useful information. I think that as the campaign quite rightly states on its website which is now effectively an historic item: “The campaign shows what a small group of committed people can achieve.” I think that passing this legislation would be something of a legacy for that small group of people who did stand up for their rights and who worked very hard and fought very hard to get a reasonable outcome out of the situation. 
We support this bill and would encourage others to do so. Kia ora. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the motivation behind this bill. However the purpose of this bill as drafted has been resolved. It is apparent that the current laws are sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of legal settlements meaning there is no need for legislative change. I would like to draw attention to section 4 of the Securities Act and clause 15 of the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. I will go to the Financial Markets Conduct Bill clause 15. I will not read the whole thing but it states: “A provision of an agreement or a deed is void if it provides that a party to the agreement or deed is—(a) required or bound to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act or the regulations; or (b) taken to have notice of any agreement document or matter not specifically referred to in the relevant disclosure document (if any).” Both of these regulations have been drafted to prevent persons seeking to contract out of New Zealand securities legislation which provides additional reassurance. 
It is possible that this bill could be harmful also as it could discourage settlement in civil disputes which could lead to uncertainty cost delay and having to take disputes to court. There is also concern that the bill may cause harm by creating an impression that such contracts were not in any event already illegal. 
Finally I would like to draw attention to some of the great work this Government is doing in restoring confidence in the finance sector. I would need an hour to go into the achievements by the Government in this area but here are just a couple of them: the creation of the Financial Markets Authority which is a one-stop shop that has a sharp and clear focus on enforcing the law; cracking down on loan sharks; and combating anti-competitive behaviour such as price fixing. As part of the Government’s plan for economic growth— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: I have listened closely to the Hon Lianne Dalziel and like I say I commend her and understand the motivation behind the development of the bill. I would like to just come back—I thought I had run out of time but seeing as how I do have the time I would just like to come back—and point out another safeguard through regulation. That is through the Securities Act 1978. I go to section 4(2) which is: “A condition of any agreement requiring or binding an applicant for securities to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act or purporting to affect him or her with notice of any contract document or matter relating to the securities that is not specifically referred to in a prospectus or registered prospectus shall be void.” So this combined with the Financial Markets Conduct Bill provides a good safety net and puts protection in place and comes back to the point that really this bill of the Hon Lianne Dalziel is now redundant. 
I would just like to finish by saying that the Government has already started to put in place a very very good programme to make sure that there is actually confidence put back into our financial markets and our capital markets and confidence is beginning to be restored. I just want to thank you for giving me the chance to speak to this bill. Thank you very much. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill going to the Commerce Committee and congratulates Lianne Dalziel on bringing it forward. The problem addressed by the bill is a matter that has needed to be addressed for some time and has had a very significantly adverse effect on a large number of people. I am very disappointed to hear of National members’ opposition to the bill because they are effectively opposing the needs of the elderly people and mum and dad investors whom they claim to support. New Zealand First on the other hand is always very keen to support the elderly and mum and dad investors in particular and this is one of the ways in which that can be done. 
The provisions of the ING-ANZ settlement concerning the Frozen Funds Group which gave rise to this bill were utterly deplorable. It amounted to nothing more than bullying people into accepting settlements with excessive and unethical provisions using their unequal bargaining power to achieve that. That is something that this House should take particular notice of. The behaviour of ING in this matter demonstrated the need for tighter regulation of the whole industry and that did result in the 2011 legislation relating to the Financial Markets Authority but this bill is still needed and that is the point that my friends on the other side of the House do not seem to have grasped. They need to have a look at it again. 
This bill addresses a specific problem which I have already referred to and it needs particular attention. Simon O’Connor in talking to the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill referred to efficiency and to tidy legislation. This is one of those issues that do need to be tidied up. It is not solved by disputes resolution procedures or anything of the kind. The practice complained of needs to be made clearly illegal. 
In the circumstances of the ING case the general release clause of the kind investors were required to sign to obtain the benefits of the settlement was objectionable especially the words: “including any claims or the extent of any claims of which you are not currently aware and any claims brought on your behalf or for your benefit by another person.” So any claim or right arising as a result of the Commerce Commission inquiry would have been avoided and any benefit arising indirectly by the action of another investor would also be avoided. That is not proper and needs to be made illegal. These provisions are nothing more than trickery and they should not be allowed. The bill declares such provisions to be illegal under the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 and rightly so. It is exactly the legislation that we need to address this issue. 
I would like to also comment on the commencement date. Although New Zealand First normally opposes retrospective legislation we would in this case approve the 10 July 2009 commencement date in the circumstances of the particular case that I have referred to and in relation to the matters that gave rise to the problem to be corrected by this bill in the first place. If there is to be a debate about the place this bill has in the regime of protections for investors then the correct place to have that debate in that sort of detail is the select committee not this House. In fact if you reflect upon the relatively lightweight debate that we have heard from the other side then you would have to say that there is no possible way they could properly vote against this bill based on what they have said so far. 
What I would respect and what New Zealanders would respect is National members changing their position turning up at the select committee debating the detail of the bill properly and then reaching a decision. I and other New Zealanders could accept that. But what we cannot understand is why based on the actually frivolous I think arguments that have so far been put forward—there is no possible way that anyone could have respect for a conclusion based on that level of debate. 
So I would really encourage my friends on the opposite benches to have another look at this bill at least let it go to the select committee debate it properly and then make a decision—and that is fair enough. For all of those reasons New Zealand First says that we must allow this bill to go to the select committee and we support it for that reason. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak on this bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I congratulate Miss Dalziel not only on having the bill drawn from the ballot but also on drafting it up and bringing it before the House. I previously have had the luck of having a bill drawn from the ballot and a couple of weeks ago a second one so I know how difficult it is for this to happen and sometimes a little bit of luck is what is needed. Can I also say to Miss Dalziel that I believe she has put this legislation together with good intent. Therefore I just want to recognise that and I know that she has thought long and hard about this. 
Others in the debate have made a number of points from our side of the House which I will not go over in great detail but I say only that when Miss Dalziel first drafted this legislation there probably was a problem that existed. Certainly many of us were contacted received emails and so on from constituents and others who were going through a very difficult process with the ING organisation regarding their frozen funds. Since then we have had legislation that has come through the Parliament which has entered the place and I do believe it addresses this issue. That is one of the main reasons why on our side of the House we will not be supporting this bill. 
What I would say to other members who have asked the Government to reverse its position and send this bill to a select committee so that we can have an ongoing debate with New Zealanders about this is that actually when it comes to members’ bills and many other bills that come before the House parties have positions and we do not always send bills to select committees. Indeed my first member’s bill was not sent to a select committee even though I think it was an issue that New Zealanders might have wanted to have a say on. So I respect that parties do have different positions and we do not always send these bills on. In this case therefore it is difficult for us to sit and hear that we should do that just so that others can have a say. 
One of the great things about this Parliament is its ability to talk about issues and to debate them and it takes a majority in this House to decide whether we will go further. Unfortunately here today we have decided that this bill is not something we would support. The intention I do recognise is a very good intention and as I said earlier I recognise that Miss Dalziel brings this here with good intent. But it is our opinion that the issue has been dealt with in previous legislation. Therefore it is probably not something that needs to take extra time of the House or of a select committee. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call to support the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s member’s bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill. Actually it reminds me of the good old days when Ms Dalziel chaired the Commerce Committee of which I was a member. Ms Dalziel was a good chair. Many have acknowledged that she was a good Minister and will be a Minister again in 2014. 
I would like also to acknowledge another former member of the Commerce Committee the Hon John Boscawen and thank him for his support of this important bill. Mr Boscawen has obviously some unfinished business with regard to this important bill. In his speech to the ING Frozen Funds Group Trust in Napier in March 2010 he said he would be working hard to convince his four other ACT colleagues to also support this bill to its first reading. I am not quite sure what is on the mind of the current ACT member the Hon John Banks nor am I sure whether Mr Boscawen’s position has any influence on the current ACT Party. 
I would like also to thank the Frozen Funds Group Trust. Going back to the days of Commerce Committee of the 49th Parliament the interest of its members in this particular issue was heightened with every new issue of their newsletter. Although the settlement the members of the group received from ING was far short of their expectations like Mr Boscawen has said the settlement may never have happened had it not been for their dedicated commitment to that task and in Mr Boscawen’s words “the military style nation-wide organisation” with more than a dozen branches throughout New Zealand. 
Much has been reported in the media of individuals facing financial ruin as a result of an investment decision in those finance companies. For those largely mum and dad investors a lack of knowledge about the nature of the risk they had been exposed to was one of the main factors. From the perspective of the finance companies I agree that in some instances the losses incurred have resulted from a dramatic change in the world markets and also a fall in property values which honest directors could not reasonably foresee. But the media reports are never short of examples of the lack of integrity in those finance companies and in the sector. Mismanagement inadequate disclosure hidden and excessive commissions for financial advisers and in some cases blatant fraud etc. were all contributing factors. On the other hand inadequate regulation and the failure to enforce that regulation have also been vital contributing factors. 
Therefore the purpose of this bill is to seek justice for everyone who invested in the two frozen funds and to increase protection for future investors. The bill amends the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 to extend the coverage of that Act to make it unlawful to limit the power of regulators such as the Commerce Commission to award a remedy or distribute the proceeds of any settlement or court order to any individual. The issue arose from the ING settlement where investors with money caught up in those funds were forced to sign away their rights from gaining any benefit from someone else taking action against ING including the regulator. I have no problem with the company making a settlement conditional on not proceeding with a civil course of action but this case was being investigated by the Commerce Commission at the time and the Commerce Commission was included in the release. Allowing such a provision to stand would effectively prevent the Commerce Commission from fulfilling its role of upholding rules that are designed to protect investors. So the bill does have a retrospective aspect whereby they are found to be in breach of their legal responsibilities to their investors. 
As a matter of public policy and of protecting the interests of the investor I commend the bill to the House. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this debate as it draws to a close. The Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel is as my colleague Todd McClay said earlier a worthy and justifiable piece of legislation to be introduced except that as with many things in politics timing and luck are actually quite important. This is a piece of legislation in its draft bill form that has in fact had its time and has been and gone. What has emerged in the time since the meltdown of ING is that this John Key - National Government has in fact taken a very strong position in determining that our capital markets should be strong and that the regulatory environment in which our capital markets operate should be strong and well respected. Indeed we have seen two pieces of legislation introduced into this House in the last 48 hours or so that have gone further to strengthen that position. Strong capital markets are indeed important to us all. 
The current law is sufficient to deal with the legitimacy or otherwise of the legal settlements. Indeed the mover in her opening introductory comments said—and I just wrote them down as she said them—that the need for this bill has diminished. Well I would suggest to you that in fact the need for this bill has diminished to a point where it is absolutely no longer required at all. She went on further to say that the bill may not be a perfect answer. I would suggest indeed that she is quite right; it is not a perfect answer. Indeed it is an answer that is no longer required at all. 
To the extent that the bill was drafted in response to a particular situation which arose as a result of the ING frozen fund situation it caused a great number of New Zealand investors enormous concern and heartache at the time. Indeed the whole financial crisis of the time created a situation for many New Zealanders where their life savings were diminished and in some cases completely done away with. Of course that is not a situation that anybody would want let alone a Government. So how did we respond to that as a responsible coherent and caring Government? Well we introduced legislation that ensured that our regulatory environment would be protected and strengthened. As part of our 120-point economic plan we have been focused terrifically on these sorts of matters. It is our priority to of course build a more competitive economy a bolder brighter and stronger economy. What we have done is ensure that everything is put in place and we have attempted of course to provide restored confidence in the financial sector because it is restored confidence that will give New Zealand investors an opportunity with real strength of confidence to invest again. They have not had that for a long period of time so we are very focused on that. 
We have tightened the oversight of those working in the financial market sector and they now operate in a regulatory regime that is going to be very very strict in terms of what they can do and how they process their transactions. One of the things that we have done is remove the barriers to trans-Tasman business and progressed legislation that will enable us to meet our single economic market achievements with Australia. We have rewritten a 33-year-old securities law leading to the Financial Markets Conduct Bill. Those are just some of the measures that we have taken as a responsible and caring Government to ensure that our regulatory environment is robust and strong and that is one of the reasons why we will not be supporting this first reading. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very disappointed that the National Government has adopted a position in opposition to a bill the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill because its members had been advised by their research unit notes that the problem is all fixed because the problem is not all fixed. It was very interesting that that was the case with every single member of the National Government who spoke with perhaps the exception of Jonathan Young who sat on the select committee that heard all of the evidence that was presented in relation to the finance company failures and that heard from people who had lost money in the ANZ and ING debacle which should never have been allowed to occur in this country. People will reflect I think for a long time on the behaviour of a number of the people involved. But let me just say that he at least understood what it was that the bill was designed to do because he was not sticking to prepared notes. 
The truth is that Government members have been told that the legislation is no longer necessary because it is fixed with the new requirements that say that a provision of an agreement or a deed is void if it provides that a party to the agreement or deed is required or bound to waive compliance with any requirement of this Act or the regulations. That is not what people were required to do. 
In fact the way that the group that was established at the time described it was that they said the offer’s condition was that customers would surrender their right of legal recourse against ING ANZ or their financial advisers. Customers also lost their right to benefit if the Commerce Commission had found ANZ or ING breached fair trade. The Frozen Funds Group Trust has called this a form of blackmail. And actually it was because there was nothing else. They had to accept the offer or the offer came off the table. It expired at midnight on a particular day and that was the end of the offer. So they had no choice but to accept the offer and the condition was that if there was a breach of the rules that apply under fair trading with the Commerce Commission if the Banking Ombudsman were to make a ruling that was generally applicable then you would get no benefit from it. You had to rescind that right. 
The problem that I have with that is simply this—and there is no problem with making the settlement conditional on not proceeding with a civil course of action; I have got no problems with that. In fact that was an issue that came up as well. That occurs every day. We give up something in order to get something. In fact the settlement with the Commerce Commission was so that it did not take them to court for their blatant breach of the Fair Trading Act. But where a regulator has identified that there has been a breach of the rules that were designed themselves to protect investors then no agreement that in any way undermines the authority of that regulator should be allowed to stand. It should be illegal. That is why I chose that particular model of the change to the Illegal Contracts Act. 
I know that the Financial Markets Conduct Bill is in front of the Commerce Committee at the moment. There is no harm in sending this bill to that select committee so that they could make sure that they get that clause of the legislation into shape where it would actually protect people from being blackmailed in this way in the future. I think that that would have been a reasonable outcome instead of having a predetermined position coming to the House and actually arguing a point of view that was not substantiated by the legislation that they were referring to. I think it is a disappointment because this was a chance for the Government to set aside perhaps the politics of the situation. 
In fact when I was the chair of the select committee I can say without a shadow of reflection that we worked really well together on both sides of the House—with the Greens as well—in order to achieve some good outcomes in relation to the financial regulation that we started and that National continued on. I believe that this was an example of a bill where the Government has simply just misunderstood that there is a gap in the legislation that needs to be filled. This was a bill that could have filled that gap and I make a last-minute plea to the Government: please support it to the select committee. At least we can resolve the differences there. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitation on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. 
In Maori Language Week I want to start with the profound Maori proverb “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata”—what is the most important thing in the world? It is people it is people it is people. That proverb describes the basic principle behind the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill which I bring to Parliament today. 
New Zealand can be the best place in the world to raise children. That is the vision that Labour has for this country and that is the origin for this bill which I drafted in 2009. It is a lofty and ambitious vision but it is achievable in a peaceful country like New Zealand because we are not war-torn we do not suffer from famine and drought and just look at the natural riches and resources we have. We really do have a head start in making this a reality. We really can be the best country in the world to raise children but it seems National does not like that idea at all. 
There are many things that we need to do in New Zealand to fulfil that vision. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the money coming from? 
SUE MORONEY 
: If Mr Smith would like to listen I am talking about a vision. I am talking about a vision that I know he cannot get but he should listen. We will not get there unless we are prepared to put children at the heart of our policy making unless we decide to prioritise investment in those early years—that is right I say to Mr Smith and to the rest of the National members—and unless we make an investment in those early years. That is what my bill calls for. Extending paid parental leave is just one measure that the Government can take to invest wisely in those early years. 
This bill proposes extending paid parental leave by 12 weeks to reach 6 months over the course of the next 3 years. It is Labour policy to reach 12 months’ paid parental leave over time but I have drafted my bill with this global recession in mind. This bill stages the introduction of extended paid parental leave over the next 3 years and the good news is it does not reach full implementation until National—National itself—says that it will have the country’s books back into surplus in 2015. That is still the plan is it not? Is that still the plan? Nick Smith is not sure that that is still the plan. But I tell you there is an old saying “Where there’s a will there’s a way” and that is so very true of paid parental leave but it does require the political will to do so. 
I said at the outset when my bill was drawn that all political parties say that families are a priority but how parties vote on my bill will show whether they really mean it or not. At the end of this debate it will be demonstrated for all to see. 
This bill does not require the Government to borrow any more money for paid parental leave. Instead it should be funded by reprioritising other spending. My personal favourite would be the cancelling of tax cuts for those earning over $150000 which would more than fund this initiative. But I would also— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is that Labour policy? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is indeed Labour policy. It is indeed Labour policy. But I would also settle for cancelling the $1.76 billion construction of the “Holiday Highway” north of Auckland where traffic volumes do not warrant the spend; the money being paid to investment bankers for advice on privatising our profitable State assets; the millions being squandered on flawed restructuring plans like the one for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; or the millions being spent on designing ghost roads—any of those would do. My point is that investing in paid parental leave is affordable if there were the will from this Government to do so but the National Government has other bad spending priorities. 
Ironically the day National threatened to use a financial veto against families needing extended paid parental leave National also announced that it was keeping agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme for longer. The cost to the taxpayer of that decision alone is estimated to be $400 million. That decision alone would pay for extended paid parental leave with plenty of change for other worthy investments. But there was no mention of a financial veto when it came to that decision was there? Why does National insist that it would have to borrow to pay for extended paid parental leave when it can make a decision costing the taxpayer $400 million at the height of a global recession with apparently no further borrowing? Answer that question Mr Smith for us. This Government’s priorities were spelt out loud and clear on that day in April. It has money to incentivise farmers to pollute for longer but not for hard-working families raising our next generation. 
But here is the real clanger: the Minister of Finance Bill English even stooped to heavily inflating the cost of my bill when he threatened a financial veto on it. That is how strongly National opposes supporting families in this way. He claimed it would cost $500 million but he had received official advice that the most it would cost would be $285.6 million over 3 years. He almost doubled the cost of it to justify using a financial veto. 
Working families deserve a fair go. They do not deserve a Minister of Finance who makes up figures to use against them and their needs. But then he is the same Minister who had Treasury work out the cuts to education in the form of increased class sizes. He was out of step with the needs of families then and he and his party are out of step with them again now. 
The same week my bill was drawn out of the ballot the Government decided it would spend an additional $11 million on adolescent mental health services—fair enough. Sadly there are more of our young people needing those services. It was interesting though that there was no hand-wringing over having to borrow money to afford that. But here is the question I want to pose: how much better off would our young people be and how much would the rest of us get to save if we invested money in their early years instead? 
The Prime Minister’s own Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman had this to say on the subject: “The early years of life have a unique and formative impact on child health development and relationships throughout life. Secure mother-infant attachment is an important predictor of resilience in later life including high self-esteem reduced anxiety and reduced hormonal responses to stress.” He went on to say: “Social investment in New Zealand should take more account of the growing evidence that prevention and intervention strategies applied early in life are more effective in altering outcomes and reap more economic returns over the life course than do … strategies applied later. This will require long-term commitment to appropriate policies and programmes.” If only the Prime Minister would listen to his Chief Science Advisor. 
There are now several pieces of research showing that for every dollar invested in supporting children and their families in those early years the rest of us get to save $12 to $17. I come from a horse-racing background and I know the odds of getting back at least $12 for every $1 invested. That is what I would call a dead cert—that is a dead cert. 
Researchers and scientists like Sir Peter Gluckman know that if we get it right in those early months and years then we do not have to spend as much money on remedial education on health problems or on youth justice for that matter. But making that smart investment requires a Government with vision. It requires a Government with courage and a real commitment to a brighter future. Tonight Labour is stepping up to show the leadership required for that type of Government—a Government that understands the stresses on working families a Government that really does have a plan for the future a Government that is fiscally responsible one that promotes more choice for families and a Government that puts children ahead of tax cuts for high-income earners. 
 Extending paid parental leave has gained broad support from the community and I think this demonstrates significant progress since the bill was introduced by a Labour-led Government. Tomorrow a coalition of community organisations will be launched in support of extending paid parental leave. It is called 26 for Babies. It involves organisations like Plunket Every Child Counts the Council of Trade Unions Unicef and the Breastfeeding Authority. I have heard from grandparents from older parents from younger parents from those contemplating parenthood and from those who were once babies themselves—that is right; everyone has got a stake in getting this right. 
Both unions and business representatives support the extending of paid parental leave and I was very pleased to hear public declarations of support in principle from both Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand and Michael Barnett of the Auckland chamber of commerce. It demonstrates the growing recognition of the value of women in the workplace by employers and that is not before time. 
In fact the 2006 evaluation of our paid parental leave scheme noted that there is widespread support amongst mothers fathers and employers for paid parental leave. And just last week the United Nations chastised the New Zealand Government and the Minister of Women’s Affairs Jo Goodhew for our low level of paid parental leave as part of the UN’s concerns about discrimination against women in New Zealand. We ranked second to last in the developed world for the duration of the paid parental leave we offer. Only the United States is below us because it has none at all. Australia used to be below us but in January last year it introduced 18 weeks’ paid parental leave. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Ten seconds to complete. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Ten seconds. In my maiden speech in Parliament I said I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Your time is up. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually probably should have called a point of order during my speech. The barracking from that side of the House— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please sit. Members know that when points of order are taken they should be taken at the time. I gave the member some generosity over her time so when I call that the time has gone beyond the member should sit immediately. 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. Nga mihi nui o Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. Let me begin in speaking to this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill by asserting that the Government supports parents being able to look after their children. What is more we spent $157 million on providing the current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave in the 2011-12 year. 
I understand completely why community groups will express tomorrow—and have already expressed—their support for paid parental leave but equally at the same time as they will say that they support it those same groups have a sense of understanding of the tight fiscal constraints that this Government is in at the moment. That is why we are still seeing such strong support in the polls for the options that this National Government is taking not the continual string of “Let’s spend on this let’s spend on that let’s spend on something else.” Just because it is a good idea does not mean that the money is magicked up out of fresh air to deliver it. We are concerned at the financial implications of nearly doubling the amount of paid parental leave which has been proposed in this bill. 
This National Government is completely focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. It is a pity that the previous Labour Government did not do the same for the 9 years that it was in Government. We want to get back to surplus. We want to get debt under control. And what seems anathema to the other side is that you just cannot spend what you have not got without going into more debt and placing the responsibility for getting rid of that debt on to the generations to come. It is a choice we have made a choice we can live with and a choice that we believe our grandchildren will live with as well. 
 We have been dealing with the biggest deficit New Zealand has ever had. It is too soon for the determinations to be made about what new entitlements will be offered when we get back to surplus. I am going to focus on our priorities which will demonstrate that this Government has a strong commitment to children and families as well. So that side should never accuse us of anything less. Go on get on your hind legs. My apologies Mr Deputy Speaker—not you of course. 
We have worked hard during the last 3½ years through a large recession to preserve income and support to families. We have— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I am having extreme difficulty hearing the member. I would just ask members to contain themselves somewhat. 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: It is great to see the others on the other side are alive and well. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since taking office. On 1 July this year the maximum parental leave payment available to eligible employees and the self-employed increased from $458.22 to $475.16 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed also increased. Employees with at least 12 months’ continuous service with their employer are also entitled to up to 52 weeks of employment-protected unpaid parental leave less any paid parental leave taken. This can be shared between eligible spouses and partners. Up to 2 weeks of unpaid partner’s paternity leave is also available. 
I believe it is very important that I describe this because this is about what the scheme currently offers. I would also like to reflect on some work that is currently being undertaken—some conversations I have had with members of the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust. They tell us that it is all very well to have paid parental leave but the important thing about paid parental leave is that it has to be managed in a way that supports the reintegration of that person back into the workforce. It is not just about the money actually. It is about feeling valued in the workforce. So when the employer goes out of their way to make that person feel supported there is much more chance—irrespective of how much paid parental leave there is—that they will return to the workforce. That is about flexibility and staging re-entry to the workforce. That is about encouragement support and again I say flexibility. That in fact will gain more than just chucking more money at it but then chucking more money at it is certainly something the other side of the House is familiar with. And boy are their promises mounting up. 
We are continually improving the Working for Families scheme which offers tax credits to help families get ahead. We are committed to providing better health-care for families including free after-hours general practitioner visits for under-sixes and delivering record rates of immunisations for under-twos. Again what might that look like? Children at the heart of policy is what that looks like. We have provided $54 million to boost maternity services to support new parents. What might that look like? Children at the heart of policy—children and families. PlunketLine is fully funded 24 hours a day 7 days a week to support new parents. Did that happen under the previous Government? No that happened under this National Government. Labour cut PlunketLine. There has been a 34 percent increase in early childhood education funding since 2008. The Government spent $1.4 billion on early childhood education. 
One of the things that I learnt when I was overseas last week is the unenviable the absolute—[ 
Interruption 
] Last week when I was away I was made aware of what an incredible record this country has for the provision of early childhood education—95 percent of New Zealand’s children have been engaged in early childhood education prior to going to school. And we the National Government have set a target of 98 percent. The UN committee could not believe that a Government would show such commitment to early childhood education. [ 
Interruption 
] The other side of the House are hating that a lot; they certainly are. We have set aside an extra $19.1 million over 4 years to support Maori-medium early childhood education services. 
The money that this Government has prioritised is prioritised into those who need it the most. The best bang for buck in terms of early childhood education spend is on the children who do not currently get any—that is nil; no early childhood education. The best bang for buck will be there. That is why we have allocated $18.9 million for 1039 new places in high-need areas. New Zealand has a proud record in regard to early childhood education. 
I want to move on to the Labour Party’s costings. The phased policy in this bill would cost $450 million extra over its first 4 years. Labour’s own costings: an extra $50 million in the first year $100 million on top of that in the second year and $150 million more in each of the third and fourth years. We do not have that money. New Zealanders know we do not have that money. The dangers of running up high deficits through unaffordable government are simply not worth it. 
The leader of the Labour Party David Shearer promised to run a thrifty Government if elected. Actually this is not a good way to get started Mr Shearer. In 2007 the Families Commission gave Ruth Dyson then Minister of Labour a report that recommended paid parental leave provisions be increased to 13 months by 2015 including a month for fathers. Labour did not do anything with that. But now those members sit on the other side of the House and berate us. I believe that I have demonstrated and I know other members on this side will continue to demonstrate that children are at the centre of our policy and we have put our money where our mouth is. We cannot afford this policy at the moment and therefore we are putting money into other things that we believe will benefit children and the families of New Zealand. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We come to the 5-minute calls. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I want to come back to a member of this House who has a true focus on women on children and on families—I want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney. This would be one of the first occasions I have stood up in this House and felt truly proud to speak to a bill and a policy that I think will contribute to children and to the betterment of their families and I thank Sue for being the champion of the bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I think she demonstrates her and Labour’s belief in and focus on children. Our vision is that New Zealand not only be the best place in the world for children to grow up but also the best place in the world to be a child and that is key to our vision. 
What did we hear from that side of the House from the Minister of Women’s Affairs? Her vision during Sue Moroney’s speech amounted to her yelling across the House “Will you mine?”. That was the interjection we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs: “Will you mine?”. The Minister of Women’s Affairs is essentially asking us the question coal or children? Well I have an answer for that Minister and my answer is this: stop subsidising heavy polluters and we can back kids; build one less road of national significance that we do not need and we can help kids and their families. This Government has proven that its priority is not children. It has proven it time and time again. To hear the Minister of Women’s Affairs stand up and justify the Government’s position that it will not invest in children was absolutely appalling. It was shallow to say the least. 
According to the OECD New Zealand spends roughly 50 percent of the OECD average on kids. Primarily that is because of the money that goes unspent on the early years. Changing our paid parental leave would go a long way to addressing that deficit. But it is not just about investing in paid parental leave because that is what families have told us they want; it is also about the evidence. Sue spoke strongly to that evidence but I just want to reiterate it. The first 6 months are known to be the most crucial period of a child’s development that we could possibly invest in. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You don’t say! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Tau Henare points out “You don’t say!”. Do something about it is what I say to the Government. You have got the evidence. Listen to your own Chief Science Advisor and do something about it. The WHO has told us that it is not only about necessity trying to encourage and assist women to breastfeed but also about attachment. We have seen more and more that attachment disorder is something that we as taxpayers are picking up later on in service provision. We have heard that conduct disorder in itself costs up to a million dollars across the course of a child’s life. Those first 6 months are crucial. 
This policy is about investing to save so you would have thought we would hear something about it in the policies of the Minister for Social Development on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. Well one thing that you do not hear the Minister talk about is the fact that in reality all children are by default vulnerable particularly in their very very early stages and that some universal policies pay extraordinary dividends. Paid parental leave is in that boat and so is early childhood education and the Minister of Women’s Affairs feels content to talk about the importance of that even though that Government cut early childhood education spending—blatantly. Now it refuses to budge on this. They tell me that that is investment in children in their critical years. Well all of the evidence sits counter to that.  
John Key himself has acknowledged that we are no longer giving families the choices about caring for their own children. We are in a race to the bottom in New Zealand for our families. We have a chance to turn that round. In fact the evidence that has come out of the Growing Up in New Zealand survey demonstrates that 87.4 percent of women took paid parental leave when they had their newborn. After that they then started taking other mixtures of leave—unpaid leave holiday leave sick leave—because it was so important to them that they be able to stay at home with their child in those early months.  
There is a better way. Sue Moroney and Labour have presented that to the House today. The fact that that Government will not support it shows its vision for children and shows that Labour will put children at the heart of its policy. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Kaiwhakawa. Me mihi au ki te Whare nei. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. My acknowledgments to this House. 
] 
I am pleased to stand in opposition to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to go through it with some quite clear reasons. I do want to be very clear from the outset of this debate that this is not a debate about the merits of paid parental leave. This is not a debate about whether this Government has children at the heart of its interests. This is not a debate about our commitment to children—it is absolutely not. I want to go through that in quite a lot of detail. 
It is kind of interesting that the member who has had this bill drawn from the ballot has been a member of Parliament for 7 years now—3 of those in Government. So if this bill was so important if it was her one sole purpose for being I am highly surprised that it has become such a priority now 7 years later when Labour is in Opposition. But you know I think that is part of existence on “Planet Labour”. Labour does the most important things when it is in Opposition—or at least it can promise them because it does not have to pay for them. That is what happens on “Planet Labour” because money grows on trees. 
National is focused on responsibly managing the Government’s finances. We have children at the heart of our interests. One of the things we are committed to not doing is leaving our children and grandchildren with mountains and mountains and generations of debt which is what that side of the House is happy to do. This side of the House has more interest in making sure that we do have an economy that is managed responsibly. 
Given that a previous speaker made some comparisons with other countries I thought it was worth touching on where the other countries sit with this currently. There are countries that have longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s. Portugal has 17 weeks Italy has 5 months Greece has 17 weeks and Spain has 16 weeks. I think those countries would be familiar to more than a few of us in the House and those listening and the disastrous economies that they are running currently. It is an example of some of the Governments’ spending that is not sustainable. There are actually some countries that are currently looking at cutting their paid parental leave—they are looking at cutting their paid parental leave. This Government is protecting the existing entitlements. Even Germany which is one of the stronger economies in Europe has had to make savings in its paid parental leave entitlements. So it is not something that is unique for us. 
We have been protecting the interests of parents in New Zealand. The Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Jo Goodhew spoke about the array of things that this Government is doing in terms of investing in children. That side of the House might not be interested in listening but there is a significant amount of work that we have done. I do not think that it should be belittled that in these difficult economic times we should be protecting entitlements. I want to give you an example. When paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 the uptake exceeded predictions. Some would say that is a good thing—absolutely. But the difficulty is it is yet another example of a spending programme that Labour introduced with no reality in terms of what the financial cost would be. It increased 175 percent between 2003 and 2010. So there was a 175 percent increase and only 14 percent more babies. 
I am proud to be a working mother. I was staggered to hear Labour member Mr Prasad in a debate last week basically imply that mothers were not capable of doing two things at once. In the debate on the social security bill that member suggested it was too difficult for mothers to work and that it was hard on their children. Well this side of the House believes that women are capable of doing more. The Minister of Women’s Affairs has given you our record and so I am more than proud to say that we are opposing this piece of legislation. We are managing the economy in a strong and sensible way. We are protecting our children supporting our families and making our communities stronger. Thank you. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou ki te Whare. The Greens will be supporting this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Our policy is for 13 months’ paid parental leave and this bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks is a good start in progressing that. If we are going to look at where we are going we should look at where we have been. The provision of 1 year’s unpaid parental leave was introduced in 1987 and it was a major breakthrough for families. Although it was not paid it meant that if they could afford to a parent could take a year off to be with their child and be assured of having the same job there when they came back. That is the crux of the matter: being able to afford to take time off to have your children and have enough time to bond with them. The State sector at that time tended to lead on good employment practices and it still does and I hope that it continues to do so. It had some provisions for paid leave during that time. 
It was not until 2002 that the Labour-Alliance Government with the then Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Laila Harré introduced the first provisions for 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. By 2006 that had extended to 14 weeks of paid leave. Since 2002 an estimated 190000 people mostly mothers have accessed those 12 or 14 weeks of paid leave. Looking at the trend over the last few years more people every year are using it. Its introduction has gone some way towards easing the financial shock that happens when a newborn enters the family and the income of the parents plummets. I remember my own experience when my son was born in 1994. His father and I shared 12 months of unpaid leave and as well as adjusting to the new circumstances of having a helpless infant that we were responsible for we also had to manage halving our income. We extended the mortgage to cover that time off. 
Today we are hearing the same arguments against 20 weeks’ paid parental leave that we heard back in the 1990s—that we cannot afford it. That was the same argument that we heard in the 1970s about equal pay. We got those measures introduced and guess what? The economy did not grind to a halt. The country did not go broke and the sky did not fall in. We have become so used to thinking in the short term that we no longer think of the long-term benefits. These long-term benefits will outweigh the costs. 
There is no doubt that 26 weeks’ leave is good for babies. The World Health Organization recommends 6 months’ breastfeeding as a way of improving and ensuring physical and emotional health for the child. Kids who have a parent at home in their first year or so actually have better cognition and fewer behavioural problems as they grow up. That child-parent attachment is critical to the child’s longer-term prospects. That child-parent attachment leads to less abuse and less neglect of children. That is the cost that we all bear as a society. We must create healthy strong families as soon as a child is born. 
Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave eases a family’s immediate financial stress. Research has also shown that generous paid parental leave results in more women returning to the same job they left which pays off for employers who have invested in those workers. It also means working mothers are able to maintain their ability to provide for their families. 
We really are slipping behind international best practice with our paid parental leave provisions. Last year Australia introduced 18 weeks’ paid leave giving working parents the opportunity to choose between that or opt for a “baby bonus” of $5000. As our population ages it is crucial that we are able to attract workers and a skilled labour force. To compete we need to be able to provide the same if not better provisions than are enjoyed elsewhere. We must get over our short-term thinking. If we invest in paid parental leave we will get good returns. It is good for the economy it is good for babies it is good for families and it is good for our labour market. Tena koutou katoa. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora ano tatau katoa tenei rangi. Ki a matau o te Pati Maori he rangi whakaharahara tenei. E tautoko ake ana i te ahuatanga o te pire ki tona mutunga mai. He aha ta tatau ta te pakeke i tenei ao? E ai ki ta wetahi ko ta te pakeke he tiaki i te tamaiti i te mokopuna. No reira kare matau i te whakahe i tera ahuatanga katoa. Ki a matau he taonga te tamaiti he taonga te mokopuna. No reira me aro tonu tatau katoa ki nga painga ka puta ki wa tatau tamariki ahakoa kei hea ratau. Ko te mea nui kia tiakina paitia ratau e nga whanau. Ana kua puta te korero i te po nei mo te ahuatanga o te putanga o te tangata ata titiro ki nga tupapaku mo tenei mea mo te whanau me ona raruraru katoa. Koinei te tikanga o ta matau aronganui kia tiaki i wa tatau tamariki. 
Me manaaki i te tamaiti koinei te mea pai o tenei o nga pire hangai tonu ana ki tenei pire. Ara kia whakarahi ake kia roa ake te ahuatanga o te me ki te wa whakata o te mea tiaki i te pepi mai i te 14 o nga wiki ki te 26 o nga wiki. He mea pai tera. Me whai wahi ano ra nga matua mena i to ratau ake kotahi ki nga kuia koroua ki nga matua keke matua whaea ranei nga pakeke kia taea ai e ratau te whiriwhiri te huarahi e tika ana mo ratau. Kia kore ratau e herea i nga momo pire. E hia ke nei nga korero kua puta mo te ahuatanga o te nui o te moni. Kua raruraru katoa tenei pire na te ahuatanga o te moni. Heoi ano ko ta matau titiro ke ki te painga o te tamaiti o te mokopuna. Kaua ko te moni i tona kotahi. 
Na pirangi ana au ki te whakaara ake i tetahi korero e hangai tonu ana ki tetahi kupu i Te Reo Maori. Ko te kupu ko tenei kupu ko te “whangai”. He aha te whangai? Ko te whangai he mea tiakina e tetahi o te whakapapa o taua tamaiti. He rereke ki tera o te kupu “adoption” e ai ki ta te kupu Pakeha. Ko te whangai ano te whangai ko te adoption ano te adoption. He aha te rereketanga? Ko te whangai he tamaiti ka tiakina e tona whanau a-whakapapa. Engari ano te adoption ka taea e te tamaiti te noho nei i te taha o tetahi o waho ake o te whakapapa. No reira ko taku ko te whakaara ake i tenei take o te whangai i te mea ehara tera ahuatanga i roto i te ture i tenei wa. 
Na hei tauira ake. O roto i a au o roto o te Waiariki nonatatanei i tae mai tetahi wahine ki a au. Me ki mo tenei wa ko tona ingoa ko Hine. I a ia tetahi pepi whangai. I whiwhi a ia i te wa i whanau mai tenei pepi. I mua o te wa i whanau mai te pepi i tono ia kia whiwhi ai ia i tetahi putea hei awhina i a ia engari kare tera i whakaaetia. Ka haere ki te tono pira ara ki te pira engari ko te kupu whakamutunga i hoki mai ki a ia i Te Tari Mahi e kao. Kare i te whakaaetia. Anei tana korero i te reo Pakeha: “Whangai are adoptions in accordance with Maori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” No reira i raro i tera ahuatanga kua raruraru katoa a Hine. 
I roto i Te Ao Maori ko tenei mea ko te whangai he mea nui. He mea o nehe me ki i toia mai ki te whai ao ki te ao marama i tenei ao hou. Engari ka taea i roto i te ahuatanga o tenei kaupapa o te whangai kia tiakina. He aha te tikanga o tenei kupu o te “whangai”? E ai ki ta te Pakeha “to feed and nourish”. Koinei te tikanga o tera kupu. Ara ano etahi atu kupu. Ko te ata whai ko te tamaiti whangai. Engari ko ta matau ko te ki atu a he aha te he o te whakaae kia pera rawa te ahuatanga o Te Ao Maori ki tera o Te Ao Pakeha. Kia whai tonu tenei mea o te whangai ki tera o te adoption. Mena e taea ana e tetahi tangata te whiwhi putea mo te adoption he aha te rereketanga o tera o Te Ao Maori me ki o te whangai? Ko ta matau ko te ki atu karekau he paku rereketanga. 
E orite ana te tiaki o te tamaiti. Ara ano te oranga o te tamaiti kei mua i te aroaro. Engari he rereke te ao me ki te tirohanga o Te Ao Pakeha me Te Ao Maori. No reira kei te whakaara ake tenei kaupapa ki a koe otira ki a tatau kia whai wahi tenei kupu ko te “whangai” ki roto i tenei pire. Kei te tautoko ake i te pire tena koutou kia ora tatau katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings once again everyone today. This is an important day to the Maori Party. We endorse this bill until its completion. What is our role—the role of parents in this world? According to some it is up to parents to care for children or grandchildren. Therefore we do not reject that stance at all. In our view children and grandchildren are treasures. So we all need to focus on the benefits that emerge for our children no matter where they are. The main thing is that families take good care of them. There was a comment made this evening about the coroner’s report pertaining to a family’s plight. This is our focus: on caring for our children.  
We must look after children. That is the positive focus of this bill which will extend paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks. That is a good thing. Solo parents couples grandparents aunties and uncles should be able to make their own choice about the best avenue for them so they are not bound by various laws. There has been a lot said about the costs of the parental leave price tag which hinders this bill. However our focus is on the welfare of the child.  
I want to raise an issue that relates to a Maori term. That is the issue of whangai. What is a whangai? A whangai is a child who is cared for by one of their kin members. It is quite different from adoption. What is the difference? Whangai are cared for by their kin but adoption allows children to live with someone who is not related by blood. Therefore I wish to raise the issue of whangai because it is not recognised by law at this time.  
Allow me to provide an example. Recently a woman came to me in my electorate of Waiariki. We will call this woman Hine. Hine had a whangai baby which she has had since its birth. Before the baby was born she applied for paid parental leave and the application was denied. She then appealed and received a response from the Department of Labour that denied her appeal. It stated this in English: “Whangai are adoptions in accordance with Maori custom and are not legally recognised until an application for adoption is lodged in accordance with the Adoption Act 1955.” Hine was in a lot of trouble under that situation.  
Within Maori society whangai is a very important concept. It is an ancient practice that has been brought into the modern world. However with this bill that concept can be protected. The term “whangai” literally means “to feed and nourish”. What is wrong with bringing the Maori practice of whangai in line with the Pakeha practice of adoption? If one can receive financial assistance for adoption what is the difference from the Maori practice of whangai? We say there is no difference at all.  
The welfare of the child must be paramount. But there are differences between the Maori and Pakeha worlds. And so I raise this issue with you and I urge all of us to allow the term “whangai” to be included in this bill. I endorse the bill. Thank you. 
] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill but for reasons that are somewhat different from those that have been expressed to this point in the House. I want to pick up on a couple of things that have been said—firstly on whangai. Having come from a family who have benefited from whangai through my mother and my nanny I absolutely believe that this is part of a conversation that needs to take place. I believe that by bringing this bill to the House Ms Moroney may actually have accidentally provided a platform for that conversation to take place. That would be one of the reasons why New Zealand First believes that this bill needs to go to the select committee. The country needs to have a conversation. We need to talk about what is not in the current bill and how we can improve it and however this bill comes out the other side of this select committee process that is exactly what the select committee process is for. 
We also with all due respect to the National-led Government do not happen to believe your numbers. We would like to see them. We had to base this on the numbers we have been given to date such as our class size numbers and we cannot get any numbers around our bonus scheme. So we would like to go through the select committee process so that New Zealand First can actually get some hard data from the officials here about how much this may or may not cost the country. 
Maggie Barry 
: Ask the reference library. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Nobody in this House disagrees—not the National Party not Maggie Barry not Labour not anybody else—that mothers and fathers are important to children. None of us disagree on that. This is not a conversation about whether that is important or not but this is a conversation that needs to take place and that is why we believe that the bill should go to the select committee and we will continue to support it to that stage. 
I do want to say one thing though to Ms Upston— 
Louise Upston 
: Mrs. I’m Mrs. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Mrs. I beg your pardon. Thank you. It always needs to be clarified. I want to say that I was a proud non-paid and technically unemployed mother for 15 years. I am proud to have been that just as much as you are proud to be a working mother. There should be no conversation between the two of us about which one of those is a better thing because there is no better thing; they are both worthy. Part of the conversation that needs to take place is about—and I believe that it was Ms Goodhew who said it—value in the workplace. I would like to see some of the extended conversation take place at the select committee about value in the home. 
This is about priorities. This is not about other countries—what other countries do how many weeks they do it in and how often they do it—this is about New Zealand and the things we prioritise and the things we value. We all say that we value children. We all say—and we all believe it—that we value those early years in that relationship with their parents. All that New Zealand First is suggesting to the Government is that it was arrogant it was paternalistic and it was dictatorial to come out before a conversation took place where the public of New Zealand could participate and say that it would veto this bill. We suggest that you change your mind. We suggest that if Ms Goodhew is right and the New Zealand public identifies the fiscal conditions that we are in then they will come they will present to us and they will say: “Yes it’s important but we think it can wait.” If Ms Goodhew believes that of the New Zealand public give them a chance to make that statement. 
New Zealand First supports this bill to select committee and we will continue to do so. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Tena koutou e te Whare. We are absolutely in agreement with many of the things that have been said in this House tonight about new parents. This is a Government that is extremely supportive of new parents and I honestly believe that the intent of paid parental leave—that it makes life easier for working mothers to take a longer leave period from their job which is good for both the parents and the baby—is an excellent thing. In fact there is considerable research to say that it is greatly beneficial to most families. We are completely in favour of that and entirely supportive of new parents. 
Let us have a look at the facts because the misguided and misinformed moronics in other parts of the Chamber have not been paying attention to the facts. This Government has put its money where its mouth is when it comes to looking after children and families. We spent $157 million providing the current 14 weeks of paid parental leave. That is just in the last financial year. We have increased the maximum paid parental leave payment by $67 a week since we took office. On 1 July of this year just over 3 weeks ago we also increased the amount of money that is available—the maximum parental leave payment available for eligible employees and for the self-employed as well. These are big gains. Look at the figures: $458 has now gone up to $475 a week. The minimum parental leave payment for the self-employed has also increased. These are excellent measures. 
Let us take a look at some of the moronic things that have been mooted in this bill: to extend paid parental leave from the current entitlement of 14 weeks to 26 weeks. But wait! There is more—there is more. Sue Moroney has actually admitted again that she wants to extend it up to 52 weeks. What does that mean? Let us just dust down the Labour abacus. Labour members do not have much call to add things up because their maths is always wrong. They are always just thinking “Oh well if we get it wrong we’ll just borrow a bit more.” Let us have a look at it using their own costings for the policy. It will cost about $450 million over the first 4 years. We do not have that money. We just do not have it. The leader says that that is thrifty. That is their idea of thrifty? I do not think so. This is not a group of people who are going to be in Government any time soon because the New Zealand public are not silly. Under Labour’s plan they would phase in this money. 
Let us take a look around the world shall we? Let us have a look at what other countries have done and what it has cost them. France pays 16 weeks of paid parental leave. It has just announced what? Spending cuts of €65 billion to eliminate its deficit. This is just what other countries pay when they have to borrow to give parental leave. Spain has 16 weeks’ parental leave and a debt of what? Of €820 billion. Its unemployment rate is 24 percent. This is the kind of future that Labour has got planned for our children and our families. This is Labour’s wisdom. Let us have a look at the infamous Greece: 17 weeks of paid parental leave. What does it cost it? A bankrupt economy that has just had €240 billion of bailout money from other countries. It is borrowing for unaffordable policies and it is not sustainable. 
Ireland has 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It is cutting €6 billion from its spending. It has cut public servants’ pay—Labour would love that would they not? They would use their union block vote pretty swiftly there. And it pays about 5 percent—it has put up VAT to 23 percent. The most generous of them all the gold standard is the United Kingdom with 39 weeks of paid parental leave. Remember this is not even close to the 52 weeks that those people actually want to bring in. They want to bring it in by stealth. It is unaffordable. The deficit in the UK is so high that the Government has just announced the largest spending cuts since World War II. Well thank you Labour and the Greens for supporting these ridiculous policies. We are doing the right thing. As happens so often Labour is out of step with the times. It is cocooned. It is unaware of cataclysmic upheavals and seismic activities. 
I believe that there is a very good debate to be had on the merits of extending paid parental leave. I believe that we can do that once the books are back in surplus so we will not be joining the international examples who have borrowed to fund the extensions. This is an ill-advised bill for these times that is poorly executed and put through and I am very very glad indeed for the children of New Zealand that we are not supporting this rubbish. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill this very important bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney who I know has worked really hard on this bill. She is supported not only by the majority in this House but also by child advocacy groups community organisations business unions and working families up and down New Zealand. In fact this bill is supported by everyone except National and ACT. But they have never supported paid parental leave. Maggie Barry perhaps needs to go and study her own party’s history. At every opportunity it has voted against paid parental leave and you do not have to go back very far in the  
Hansard  
to find out what the National Party members were saying about it including the current Minister of Women’s Affairs who made a disgraceful speech—a disgraceful speech. She actually said in the debate in 2006 around extending paid parental leave to the self-employed that it was like a benefit that women would be better off with a tax cut and that it was just extending welfare all the time. I mean it was disgraceful stuff that we have heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs. 
Then we have heard the National Party blaming women and children for the global financial crisis. Can you believe it? Can you believe it? I have heard everything now. The truth is that this Government would far rather waste money on tax handouts to people who do not really need them than invest in future generations by ensuring that they have the best start in life. 
This bill will ease pressure on working parents and boy do they need it at the moment. It will align us with entitlements in the OECD and help prioritise the early years of our precious children’s development. Extending paid parental leave will improve the health of mothers and children. It will help working mothers breastfeed until their baby is 6 months of age which is the World Health Organization’s recommendation. It also helps prevent premature return to the workforce on the basis of financial stress. It enables women to stay connected to the workforce but have a reasonable amount of time off with their newborn babies. 
Paid parental leave is an issue about families and children but it is also a work rights issue. The need for paid parental leave has sharpened over the last 20 years as more women have entered the workforce and here I want to acknowledge all the women and men throughout New Zealand who campaigned for at least 20 years for paid parental leave. And the campaign goes on. Paid parental leave gives a worker the right to take time out to recover from birth to establish breastfeeding and to bond with their baby. We do that by paying an entitlement that minimises the economic impact that forces parents to return to work before the time is right. 
We now know from a number of evaluations that our current 14 weeks’ paid parental leave is too short. Parents are returning to work early because of economic pressures and the negative impact of that cannot be exaggerated. There are strong and proven and employment reasons for having longer paid parental leave. The goal of paid parental leave is to support both the maternal health of the mother and the baby but the current length of paid parental leave in New Zealand does not do it adequately. 
People tonight have said that most other OECD countries offer longer periods of paid parental leave than New Zealand and many provide leave at a higher proportion including Australia which has now moved to 18 weeks and it is paid at a higher rate than New Zealand’s. But unfortunately since National became the Government in 2008 it has done the bare minimum on paid parental leave. The amount has increased because it had to under the Act. It is an automatic increase. You are talking about $20 a week over some period of time. It is provided for cost of living increases only as it had to under the Act. 
After being a world leader when paid parental leave was introduced in 2002 and extended in 2005 New Zealand is now lagging behind and we know that New Zealand was criticised internationally just last week at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women because of our record not only on progress for women but also on paid parental leave. 
All Governments have to make choices about priorities every day they are in office. We say this Government is making the wrong choices and priorities. It is wasting money on foolish ventures on consultants and on a crazy asset sale scheme. Well Labour’s difference is that we choose families and children. I support this bill. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight. Everybody in this House will agree that spending time with your family is important. I am a mother of three—a working mother—and every single moment I spend with my— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: All mothers are working mothers. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Sorry what was that—every mother is a working mother? They absolutely are. But I absolutely believe that every moment that we spend with our children is valuable especially when you cannot always be in the home with them. We are lucky we live in a country that puts a value on children and supports their parents. I believe that families are the cornerstone of our society and we need to strengthen them as much as we possibly can. 
But this bill this Labour bill puts a cost on the taxpayer of $150 million a year and with Labour’s own costings that is $0.5 billion of taxpayers’ money over the next 4 years. Where is this money going to come from? Well I can tell you exactly where it is going to come from. It is going to come from overseas lenders. We are going to have to go into the international market place borrow money and pay back interest and this is money we cannot afford to borrow. The Labour Party wants to drive New Zealand further into debt. It wants the country to borrow more it wants the country to spend more and it is doing it thinking it is just going to be OK. Well actually we cannot. Having the State running up debt does not help families. Borrowing more does not help families. What helps families is smart policies and sound economic leadership and this is what this Government is delivering for the people of New Zealand and New Zealand families. We need to get back into surpluses. We need to get back into the black and we are going to pay for the policies the right way with money in the bank. 
Under this Government we are going to spend the taxpayers’ money wisely and support families with holistic family policy approaches. So what are we doing for family policy you might ask—not that those members are asking—but what would you do for family policy? This is what we are doing. We have got free doctor visits for most under-6-year-olds. We have got higher Working for Families payments. We are spending—listen to this Sue Moroney—34 percent more on early childhood education than was ever spent under the Labour Government. We are fully funding PlunketLine 24/7 which that Labour Government cut. We are boosting maternity services by $50 million for new parents and vulnerable parents so they can go and get more access to the services that they need to support their families. We have got the lowest inflation rate since 1999 and how does that help families Labour would ask. Well it is pretty obvious. Lowering the cost of living for New Zealand families is absolutely fundamental for them to survive in these tough times. 
So what are we going to do in the future you might ask for families instead of this $150 million one-off policy? Well what we are going to do is target 98 percent of our under-fives to attend early childhood education over the next 5 years. What a fantastic start for our families. We are going to improve maternity services to get the access better for those families. What a great start for our families. And by 2017 we are going to increase infant immunisations to 95 percent for 8-month-olds. What a great initiative for families. There is a right time and a wrong time to implement policy and this is not the right time to extend parental leave. 
 I just want to raise one issue about parental leave that has not been talked about in this debate and that is about the signals and the trends that we are hearing about coming from the sector—from midwives and health professionals in the sector—about what is happening. The trend we are hearing about is that parents now believe—we are seeing a trend—that they are taking only those 14 weeks that the Government is paying for. Previously families used to save. They used to plan to take the leave that they would like to take with their families. So when we have policies like this we have to be very careful to ensure that we do not send the message that parental leave is for only those 14 weeks; it is absolutely not. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the bell before during my maiden speech in Parliament I said that I wanted to improve work-life balance for New Zealand families. This bill the Parental Leave and Employment (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill will do that. It will do it in a way that helps New Zealand children get the best start possible it will do it in a way that supports working families at that critically important time in their lives and it will do it in a way that truly does value parenting. I want to thank those parties that have expressed their support for this bill in the House tonight. I think there has been some very rational and well-researched debate coming through from the parties supporting the bill. I was though alarmed and I will say actually surprised at the sheer venom coming from the benches opposite as this side of the House strives to do something positive to support working families. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To get us more in debt—more debt. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The sheer anger—led by Dr Nick Smith I would have to say but challenged very very quickly by Maggie Barry—coming from that side of the House was something I was not quite prepared for. I have got to say that to me it demonstrated an anger and a resentment towards working families that I thought was quite ugly. I thought it was quite ugly because that Government was on the wrong side when it came to the class sizes issue. It did not understand families’ needs then and it does not understand families’ needs now with paid parental leave. There is a bit of a theme coming through. 
But look I think there was actually a lawyer in Kaitaia who said it best. A Kaitaia lawyer by the name of Bryce Quarrie was quoted in his local newspaper saying he was not entirely surprised by finance Minister Bill English’s threat to use his power of veto over this bill. He said: “When you’re a farmer in Dipton you probably think women should be at home making tomato sandwiches for the shearing gang anyway.” and I think he has hit the nail on the head because as much as those members might try to say that they support paid parental leave the truth is and the fact is that the National Party has always voted against paid parental leave even when Labour when in Government was running such strong surpluses. When we were in Government the National Party voted against it on every single occasion. This is not to do with affordability; this is to do with ideology. It is to do with the tomato sandwiches and the shearing gang and that is where the National Party still sits on this issue. Yet it says that it wants to provide—in fact it promised the voters at the last election—a brighter future. Well I put that party on notice. Selling our State assets is not a brighter future. Increasing class sizes is not a brighter future. Investing in children in those early years by extending paid parental leave to 6 months is a brighter future. That is what New Zealanders are going to start to see through very very soon. In fact I think they have starting seeing through it already. 
 I think on the odd occasion the National Party did let its mask slip. Maggie Barry called this ridiculous policy at the same time as I am sure her speaking notes her research unit notes were telling her “Please don’t say you don’t like paid parental leave. Just pretend you do and say it is all about the cost.” We have already exploded that myth because as I said at the very outset that Government spends money on people earning over $150000— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You still haven’t told us how you’re paying for it. Where’s the money coming from? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am telling you now Mr Smith. I am telling you exactly how. The tax cuts for those people earning over $150000 that they did not need is money that should be spent on supporting working families. That is exactly the money. Mr Smith has challenged me to say where the money would come from and I have said where the money would come from. But here is an even better idea. The paid parental leave allowance is $475 gross a week. We pay in childcare subsidies up to $588 a week for those same babies to be looked after by strangers. I say let us put that money into having their parents being able to choose to stay at home with them and let them have a choice. 
This debate is about families and I want to take the opportunity now to thank my family for being here. Three generations of my family are here today to support me on this bill. My parents Mary and Daddy Moroney are here who brought me up and I think did a pretty damn good job. Thank you very much for being here. I have my husband Shane who has come to support me for the first reading of this bill and I guess who you might call the people who gave me the personal initiative for this bill: my sons our boys Quinn and Logan. It is great to have you here. You are all my pride and joy and that is what it is all about. It is about a mother’s love for her children. I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
Lobbying Disclosure Bill 
First Reading 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I move  
That the Lobbying Disclosure Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. 
It is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce the Lobbying Disclosure Bill which is my first member’s bill in this House. I want to begin by acknowledging Sue Kedgley who originally conceived of and drafted this bill during the 49th Parliament. It is an honour and a privilege to carry on Sue’s important work for more open and transparent government and honest politics and to have the opportunity to guide her bill through Parliament’s processes. 
Sue launched this bill out of a concern about the growing influence of lobbying in New Zealand. After 12 years in Parliament she thought lobbying was becoming increasingly entrenched in our political system and she was concerned that it was unregulated and often happening behind closed doors outside the public sphere. This bill was drawn from the ballot at a time when there are increased calls for lobbying transparency in other jurisdictions as well as New Zealand. In the United Kingdom the Conservative Government has also undertaken to introduce a statutory register of lobbyists following a number of high-profile scandals involving lobbying. Although we are fortunate that New Zealand has not been caught up in lobbying scandals like those we have seen in other jurisdictions the reality remains that some people have a better chance of being heard than others. Most of the time we do not know who these people are including until very recently the small group that has access passes to Parliament. 
This bill is an opportunity to create best practice in New Zealand before we find ourselves in a situation like that of the United Kingdom. A lobbying disclosure regime is an important step towards more open government and is consistent with recent moves towards greater transparency and independence for MPs’ salaries and expenses in New Zealand and in other Westminster jurisdictions. This bill aims to bring a measure of transparency and public disclosure to lobbying activity in New Zealand. It also aims to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament and in political decision-making. It is closely modelled on the successful Canadian public disclosure regime and was developed following an OECD report recommending that member countries take action to establish lobbying disclosure regimes in their respective jurisdictions. 
The bill seeks to do two things. First it establishes a Register of Lobbyists. Anyone who is paid to undertake lobbying activity must register and file quarterly returns with the Auditor-General. Second it empowers the Auditor-General to develop a code of ethics for lobbyists in consultation with key stakeholders and the public. Once finalised anyone registered as a lobbyist would be required to comply with the code of ethics. 
There are some key principles that have guided my work on this bill to date and I would like to set these out for members now to help shape our debate in the House tonight. It is my intention that these principles should be included in the purpose statement in the final version of the bill if it progresses through further stages in the House. First lobbying is a legitimate activity. In seeking to introduce a disclosure regime and a code of ethics it is not my intention to designate lobbying as illegitimate or to prevent it from happening. It may come as a surprise to some members to hear that politicians are not experts on everything. In some cases we are not experts on anything. It is an important part of our job to hear from those with knowledge on an issue to help inform our decision making. Lobbying can help with this. Although this bill would require certain communications to be registered and declared it does not suppose that these communications should not be taking place. 
Second an open and accessible Government and Parliament is vital. A wonderful thing about New Zealand is how approachable and accessible our politicians are. In no way do we want this bill to be seen as an attempt to restrict access to MPs or to have a chilling effect on interactions between the public and their representatives. We want it to be easy for people to actively engage as citizens in our democracy. However as part of this open and accessible system we need to be transparent about who has that access. The public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs on which issues. Lobbying transparency will help to level the playing field in terms of influence on decision making. 
Since the bill was pulled from the ballot I have sought to engage with anyone and everyone with an interest in the bill or who might be affected by a lobbying disclosure regime. I have met with corporate lobbyists in-house lobbyists from businesses and non-government organisations and representatives from unions charities and other political parties all in an effort to learn more about how a disclosure regime and a code of ethics would fit within their activities and to understand the impacts it would have on their work. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to meet with me and share their thoughts on the bill. It has been an enjoyable and at times eye-opening process. 
Through this consultation process it has become clear that certain areas of the bill as currently drafted may require amendment. Although it is vital that a lobbying disclosure regime upholds the principles of openness and transparency it also needs to be practical and workable. I freely acknowledge that there is a tension there and it is one that I am confident we can work through in the select committee. 
In the spirit of openness and transparency but without wanting to prejudice any of the conversations that we will have in the committee I would like to flag to the House some of those areas that I believe may require further exploration. One area is the definition both of lobbying activity and who would be captured as a lobbyist. The bill currently defines lobbying as communication in an attempt to influence public decision-making in relation to legislation regulation Government policy or the awarding of grants funding contributions or contracts by or on behalf of Government. It also includes the act of arranging a meeting between a public office holder and any other person. A lobbyist would be anyone who for payment undertakes this sort of communication with a public office holder namely MPs Ministers and anyone employed in their offices. 
Both of these definitions are deliberately wide because as soon as restrictions are introduced we risk not capturing the activity that should be captured and open up avenues for getting around the disclosure regime. However these wide definitions may have some unintended consequences. An example was flagged in the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report on this bill which highlighted that the bill as currently drafted may capture individuals who communicate with their electorate MP on behalf of a small business regarding Government policy. The intent of this bill is not to prevent constituents from contacting their MPs or to prevent MPs from conducting their normal duties. It may be necessary to amend the definitions in the bill to make sure that this intent is clear. 
Another area that I believe warrants further exploration is the possibility of moving the onus of registering and filing returns from the individual lobbyist to the organisation that they represent. This change would help to clarify who is undertaking lobbying activity and would therefore need to register as well as reducing the administrative burden particularly for smaller organisations. Questions have also been raised with me about the range of activity that might fall within the definition of lobbying communication and how much of that activity would need to be disclosed. 
I am hopeful that some of the grey areas about what to declare and when will be dealt with through the development of a code of ethics as well as in the broader role of the Auditor-General or another agency that might pick up the role and functions suggested for the Auditor-General. In Canada the Commissioner of Lobbying has a strong educational role in order to foster awareness of the requirements of the Act and is able to take a discretionary approach towards issues of compliance. I would like to see the same thing happen here. 
There are some aspects of the bill that I believe must remain intact and are central to the purpose of the bill. It is important that the bill continues to apply across the board to all types of individuals or organisations that undertake paid lobbying activity. This means that as well as capturing consultant lobbyists it must also apply to so-called in-house lobbyists representing businesses and organisations including not-for-profits. True transparency means we need to be able to see the range of organisations that have been communicating with MPs and Ministers in an attempt to influence public policy. Anything less would not give a clear picture of influence. However I am aware from the useful conversations I have had with various organisations and peak bodies that there are particular concerns for smaller not-for-profit organisations about how the provisions of this bill might apply to them. I am confident that these can also be addressed by the select committee and I reiterate in the House tonight my willingness to engage with an open mind on these issues. 
I am grateful for the indications of support I have had from other parties to allow this bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I look forward to engaging in the deliberations of that committee and exploring some of the potential amendments I have flagged in my speech tonight as well as hearing from affected parties and members of the public about potential further improvements to the bill. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of continuing the Lobbying Disclosure Bill put forward by Holly Walker to the select committee stage for further discussion and I congratulate Holly on having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. I was most interested to hear that the genesis of the bill was from Sue Kedgley with whom I worked quite closely on a previous select committee. I am surprised to be honest that she is not here but no doubt she will be in touch. 
This is a bill drafted with good intentions one could say and noble intent—the intent to promote the ideals of open government which I am sure everybody in this Chamber would agree with. The Government is supporting this bill to select committee because we see and value the need for a debate on access to and influence of third parties on MPs and staff. Just as the previous speaker Holly Walker was perhaps a little harsh towards Simon O’Connor when he introduced his bill I am sure she will not mind if we level a little bit of gentle criticism on this one. Indeed she has given notice of the fact that even in her own opinion this bill probably does require a little bit of work which is why we would like it to come to the Government Administration Committee. 
Transparency around the activities of those lobbying MPs and their staff is an important element of open government and one that this bill aims to strengthen. From that point of view it is a commendable bill as many bills that are discussed and debated in this House are—commendable but I would suggest flawed in several ways. Some of the flaws within this bill are really quite deep. I believe that it can be helped through the select committee examination and the full submission process. I have great faith in the ability of the Government Administration Committee which I am proud to be the deputy chair of. We work very productively we are blessed with people with a lot of experience and we will work towards the intent of this bill while ensuring that it does not—and this is the kicker—curtail the fundamental rights of constituents and indeed of MPs in the process. 
Let us not forget that lobbying members of Parliament is a fundamental democratic right that goes to the very heart of a democracy—a right that in its current form this bill could be seen to detract from. It is the right of freedom of expression. I believe that it was Keith Locke who once said: “All should be given the right— 
Andrew Little 
: We know how highly regarded he is by the National Party! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —to express a view no matter how disconcerting it should be”—Andrew you should listen to this—“on even the most difficult or abhorrent of issues … Implicit in free speech is the idea that the community benefits from untrammelled exchange of views and that every participant might have something to add to our enlightenment.” That was Keith Locke. 
Likewise article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information …”. 
Both these statements make a vital and not always comfortable point: freedom for all to hold and express opinions and to speak truth to power is essential to all societies. We members of Parliament can take for granted our ability to say our piece and it is a wonderful thing to be able to do that. We ourselves can come to stand in this Chamber not just for ourselves but also for those whom we are elected to represent and for those who approach us to represent them. We must not dismiss or cast out the views of constituents due to their profession or whether they are paid to be there. We must promote engagement with MPs giving them their fair hearing and allowing all constituents to speak their mind just as we are free to do. Likewise we must not compromise an MP’s ability to engage in discussion with members of the public be they doctors be they unionists be they members of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Greenpeace or republicans. The Labour Party may I suggest would not be where it is today without the lobbying and access to the parliamentary precinct of the union movement. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh for goodness’ sake! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No it would not. It would not. How too would the Green Party itself respond to greater restrictions on its own lobby groups? Would it be exempt under this bill? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Probably. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: “Probably.” says the Attorney-General. Indeed if so is this the intention of the bill after all? Is there a conspiracy coming from the party that sees conspiracies in so many other things? Is there a conspiracy in this bill as a self-serving partisan attack that makes exceptions for some lobbyists but not for others? The author of the bill is shaking her head and I am immediately consoled. But I think Miss Holly Walker it might require a little bit more convincing than just an innocent shake of the head. 
Much of this scope for conspiracy and underhanded partisan trickery is due to the untidiness of the bill as it exists currently. Charles Chauvel noted in his Supplementary Order Paper on this bill: “the Attorney-General’s report issued under section 9 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 points out [that] the Bill is too broadly cast.” Likewise the definition of “lobbying activity” given is broad and unwieldy and in much need of greater clarification and honing and polishing by a select committee and the people on it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I agree. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Mr Mallard is agreeing with the Attorney-General. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. I will just say that bit again; you may not have quite caught it. I will try it again. This bill also seeks to legislate against lobbying activity only when it is conducted for payment. Where does payment begin and end? Furthermore where does this leave non-salaried lobbying for economic gain? This lack of definition of “payment” and “economic gain” creates confusion and leaves the door open for widescale circumvention of the system that this bill has been designed to create. 
New Zealand as a nation has always prided itself on both its transparency and its freedom of speech but if this bill rests solely on these aspects then far from being transparent it is as murky as old dishwater. Indeed rather than focusing on the exchanging of ideas and MPs learning through giving everyone a fair shake the bill could proffer a very Hollywood style of an “us versus them” mind-set which has no place in contemporary democratic politics. 
The largest misrepresentation the Greens appear to have gleaned from fiction when creating the bill appears to be the influence that lobbyists have over politicians. It may surprise them to know that New Zealand is first in the world out of 192 countries as the least corrupt country in the world according to Transparency International. Holly is nodding; she knows that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member must use the honourable member’s full name. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am glad to see Ms Holly Walker is nodding in agreement. Thank you Mr Speaker. Although we always strive to better ourselves when it comes to transparency this bill has a long way to go before it achieves that. 
Let me conclude by stating a hope that every bill passed into law by this House must have not just a noble intent but a positive effect on the lives of those governed by it. Without this even the best intentions are in need of redemption. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Labour Party is going to be supporting the Lobbying Disclosure Bill at its first reading but we do have quite a few reservations about the effect the bill would have if passed into law in its current form. If it were to come back from the select committee in its present form I think it is unlikely that we would support it beyond that stage. 
I want to talk about the underlying values that should drive this which is about increased transparency around professional lobbyists and those who are basically seeking influence for money. I think that we definitely want to see greater transparency around that and I think that is something that is universally supported. 
I do want to talk however about some of the practical realities of being a constituency member of Parliament and what this bill might actually mean for constituency members of Parliament. I want to start with the plumbers because I have a group of plumbers in my electorate who are very passionate about the regulatory environment for plumbers at the moment. They have had quite a few issues under both Labour and National Governments that they are very vocal about. They have come to me as their local member of Parliament to express their dissatisfaction. Technically because they are paid—they are coming to me in their paid capacity—they are covered as lobbyists under this piece of legislation. Church ministers will come to speak to me in their capacity as a minister of the church to talk about issues that are impacting on citizens in my electorate and that is something that I want to actively encourage. I want to make sure that people in my electorate know that my door is open and that they can come and talk to me about any number of issues. 
One of the things many constituency members of Parliament do is we effectively act as troubleshooters for people sometimes in relation to paid employment issues. Under the current wording of this bill some of those would be required to be disclosed if this bill is implemented in its present form. I think that far from improving our democratic system and improving transparency around it it would actually act as a deterrent for people to speak to their members of Parliament about very legitimate things. There are some people who come to speak to a member of Parliament who would not do so if it was going to automatically become public that they did. I actually think that that would hinder the democratic process and in fact be very very damaging. 
I accept that the Green Party probably does not have the active constituency offices that the Labour members of Parliament and the National members of Parliament do and I know they choose to spend their parliamentary resources on other things but the constituency members of Parliament will certainly all agree that in fact we deal with quite a number of quite sensitive issues in constituency offices. That is something that I will very very jealously guard because I think it would be very detrimental to our democratic system if people felt that they could not come to speak to their members of Parliament without that having to be disclosed. 
I have had some round table - like discussions in my office around a whole variety of issues that have involved— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not Business Roundtable. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —not Business Roundtable; we have had round-table discussions—getting a whole lot of people who are involved in an issue in the office to actually sort out problems. Some of them are paid to be there because you know they may be connected to the case in some way. They may a lawyer involved in it somehow it may be a business that is involved in it somehow and they are not there to lobby. They are there because we are trying to solve a problem that may involve a family issue for example. Those are the sorts of things that are quite sensitive and I think those people need to be able to know that their member of Parliament can help them with those issues without it having to be disclosed to the general public. So I am concerned that one of the effects of this bill is that it would require that and therefore it would act as a detriment to that happening. 
As I said the intention of the bill overall is a good one. It is about getting greater transparency around the work of professional lobbyists and certainly that is something that I fully support. I think there are other things that are not covered by this bill that we need to look at around the way the Parliament operates and that environment as well. I would also point out however that we have a very open system at the moment and we do have some systems in place—for example the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament—that help to safeguard our democratic process from those who are effectively trying to buy influence. So our system is good. The intention of the bill is good but some of the practical impacts of it are not good. We are going to be monitoring this very closely. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. New Zealand is a vibrant democracy. Its citizens have a high level of trust in their Government and believe that we work in a transparent manner and that we are accountable to the people who elected us. If we compare New Zealand with many other countries I think we are transparent. We remain accountable to the people who elect us to the Parliament. Yet our colleagues in the Green Party believe that there is a need for lobbying disclosure legislation. Green MP Holly Walker through her member’s bill would like to see the establishment of a register for lobbyists which would to be administered by the Auditor-General and the development of a code of conduct for lobbyists. 
 I agree with the example Chris Hipkins gave. A lot of people come and lobby us on their various issues. 
National supports this bill in its first reading. However can I just say that the bill actually in my opinion is an attempt to reduce freedom of speech. I mean why else would a bill want to put a control over people who send a simple email to their representatives in Parliament? 
To some constituents who may not be fully aware of how Parliament functions how laws are enacted or how they can make their voice heard we as members of Parliament have at times to be their voice at various levels. I do not believe that is an amount of lobbying in any manner. Rather it is an opportunity for me to be of service to the people of the constituency. It is my opportunity to engage with constituents and show them that I am at their service. 
In case we are to call engaging with one constituent lobbying then can I ask my colleague across the Chamber: how else are individuals and stakeholders of public policy meant to engage with legislators to make their decisions on their policies? By binding lobbyists to law are we not imposing rules on the right of the lobbyists that they may have just as a normal person? These are the issues that we will look forward to engaging on during the select committee process. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Lobbying Disclosure Bill as presented going to the Government Administration Committee. In December last year Transparency International published a global Corruption Perceptions Index which placed New Zealand first in the index of the world’s least corrupt nations. That was something for us to be proud of and something to be valued. 
The perception of corruption amongst members of Parliament is very low in New Zealand despite a recent high-profile case. But that low level can be enhanced further by more openness around lobbying of MPs in this country. Openness and transparency are essential in all areas of Government save only where genuine issues of public interest require an exception. In the United Kingdom recently as we all know the corrupt practices concerning member of Parliament expenses there became an issue that degraded the reputation of the UK Parliament. Transparency is the medicine to avoid all such problems. A perception is something that you cannot shake. Once a Parliament gets a reputation for being anything other than free from corruption it is very hard to shake that perception. So for those sorts of reasons I think this bill although it is very much required in this country is not aimed at correcting a current problem; it is aimed at avoiding such problems happening in the future. 
In relation to paid lobbying and activities it is very necessary. It is appropriate and desirable and it is harmless and worthwhile. There is nothing inherently wrong of course in lobbying. It is a healthy part of our democracy provided it is done openly and provided it is done ethically especially where it concerns professional—in other words paid—lobbyists. Currently it is something of a secret activity and it should not be. Professional paid activities require professional standards and openness. The public ought to have the means to know the who the what and the how about lobbying in this country as is the case in Australia in Canada and no doubt in other places as well. Therefore the requirements of the bill for registration of professional lobbyists—those who are paid—returns of lobbying activities and a code of conduct arrived at through a consultative process and with select committee scrutiny are appropriate and should be welcomed by lobbyists as well as MPs and the public generally. 
The administration of the Act as it will be by the Auditor-General in respect of the register the keeping of returns and making them publicly available and the development of the code of conduct of course are also very appropriate provisions in the bill. There will be a cost of course but it would be modest compared with the value of preserving New Zealand’s reputation externally and Parliament’s reputation internally. 
Concerning sanctions the removal or suspension of a lobbyist from the register for a breach of the code or for failing to file returns is a very powerful tool and will be successful. That of course is subject to a lobbyist being given the opportunity to present their views in those circumstances. New Zealand First’s only reservation really is around the definition of the term “lobbyist” and I expect that the select committee will pay close attention to that particular issue. That being solved this is a bill that should proceed. 
New Zealand First would like to consider in the future whether this principle should also be applied to local government because if it is appropriate for central government then it is of course also appropriate for local government. But that is an issue for the future—one however that I do think needs to be considered. New Zealand First is satisfied that this bill is well conceived and that it deserves full consideration by the select committee with particular reference as I have said to the definition of who a lobbyist is for the purpose of the bill. With that reservation and those comments New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the member who has introduced this bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill today Holly Walker and also her predecessor in crafting the bill former MP Sue Kedgley someone whom I got to know quite well in the 49th Parliament on I think the Health Committee. She is a very interesting lady and a very friendly person someone who holds views passionately—and I love passionate people—however wacky those views might be from time to time. One of the things that I think she did believe very fervently was that Government policy should somehow be framed in a hermetically sealed unit with no other outside influence—a values-based approach to policy setting—and it simply is not the case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did you have the experience of the other Waitakere man in that area? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: There is another speech going on here; I am sure it is important to Mr Mallard. As we all know that is not the case. 
Todd McClay 
: Sue Kedgley also believed in aliens but then she realised that— 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right and aluminium vapour trails I think and no end of conspiracy theories. I think one of the things that needs to be understood is that in receiving information it is got from both sides of an argument normally. I think the Speaker of the House has aided this debate today by issuing a press release identifying the—wait for it—15 external parties to Parliament that have access cards to the parliamentary precinct. That list contains such luminaries as two former MPs’ spouses and the fellow who does the prayer breakfast every Wednesday morning. One could consider whether or not that person is on a mission and therefore should register as a lobbyist; I think he is paid by the Methodist Church to be here—a very noble intent. 
If one looks at the nature of the bill one might question the breadth the absolute breadth of the definition of “a lobbyist” and the definition of “lobbying”. I think the Attorney-General that fine member has provided something of a very forthright opinion which I shall quote from now. He has concluded that “the Bill appears to limit freedom of expression as affirmed by s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. The limitation cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” I think that is a very profound statement. But the one that resonated with me was in his summary where he said: “it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament”. Members will remember when we last heard the words “chilling effect”. That was around the Electoral Finance Act. I am fascinated. The criticisms of the potential risks that this bill has—the Green members are sagely looking and saying: “No no that won’t happen. That won’t happen.” but it sure as heck happened to the Electoral Finance Act when it was passed and that had a chilling effect on democracy. I certainly do not question the noble intent that Holly Walker and Sue Kedgley had in bringing this bill to the House and I do not believe that it was anything like the sinister intent to stifle freedom of speech in this country that was the basis for bringing the electoral finance legislation before the House but nevertheless it may yet have that effect. 
Mr Auchinvole has quoted Keith Locke. I want to quote the other luminary in the Attorney-General’s opinion and that is the first President of the United States George Washington when he was talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.”—like sheep to the slaughter. I think we need to think very carefully about that impact. 
Metiria Turei 
: Ha ha! A little dramatic there Michael. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Yes they laugh. The Green member laughs but when Todd McClay sought to interject on Holly Walker what did she say? “Shh!” and I think that sums it up completely. 
I think freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this House is the No. 1 right that every member of Parliament has—freedom from the Crown and freedom from the public. And the independence to be able to listen to speak about and share the ideas on a bill on a policy or on supply is absolutely fundamental. In considering the bill very carefully the Government Administration Committee should consider very carefully whether those rights will be eroded if this bill is passed. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As other members have begun their contributions to the debate I would like to follow in that tradition by congratulating Holly Walker on the drawing of her bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill for debate in the House. 
I will say to her what I said to Sue Kedgley when the bill was originally drawn and before it was transferred into Holly Walker’s name. Members on this side of the House are very supportive of the idea of greater transparency and bringing that greater transparency to the House in the lobbying area and if that can be done in a workable way then Labour members will look forward to supporting the legislation further. But what we cannot do I think is ignore the very real concerns that have been expressed to us about the practicability of the bill and that is especially the case with the community and voluntary sector. The number of non-governmental organisations and voluntary organisations that have come to me and other Labour members and expressed real concern about the sort of reporting burden that this legislation would put on them simply cannot be ignored. That is why what I have done is try to crystallise some of the objections that have been expressed to us and that we sympathise with in Supplementary Order Paper 76 which I have tabled at this first reading so that Labour’s objections to the legislation can be clear from the outset and we can hopefully get some changes under discussion as early as possible. 
The three fundamental changes that the Supplementary Order Paper in my name would effect are as follows. First of all it would make it very clear that the target of this legislation ought to be lobbying for commercial purposes. In my view and in the view of my colleagues there is simply no public interest or no similar public interest in subjecting big tobacco big alcohol big pharmaceutical or big food to the same sorts of light transparency requirements as might apply to a small NGO that is delivering social services or health services or is representing a particular philosophical religious or other belief. 
So the first thing that my Supplementary Order Paper would do is it would make it very clear that the focus of transparency registration and what have you ought to be on those big commercial interests because that is the area where under our laws at the moment there is insufficient transparency. NGOs voluntary organisations and incorporated societies are accountable to their members. It is very clear through their reporting what they do from day to day. That is not the case even in respect of a corporate let alone an association of corporates or other commercial interests. And I do agree that there ought to be a focus on those sorts of interests and a better idea amongst the public about how they are seeking to exert—and indeed are exerting—influence. So that is the first change that we would want to see. 
The second change is one that I think Holly Walker has conceded needs to be made and that is that it needs to be absolutely clear that communications between members of Parliament and constituents are not caught by this legislation. We all know—because we have all been in this position—that members of the public come to us in confidence to express concerns to express a desire to see us take up causes on their behalf that they would not want the public to know about because they are deeply personal to them. It has to be absolutely clear that that communication remains inviolate. 
The final amendment that I have foreshadowed is an attempt to make the exemption that currently exists for public servants workable by extending it to all those who work in the wider State services. 
I hope we can make something good of this bill. I apprehend from the speeches across the House that it will go to the Government Administration Committee. I hope that the legislation that emerges from the select committee can be workable. And I hope that the Supplementary Order Paper that I have provided helps to point the way to at least some of that workability. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support Holly Walker’s Lobbying Disclosure Bill. We would like to thank all the other parties in Parliament for their support of the bill. The humour we have seen in the debate has been phenomenal tonight. I would like to acknowledge Sue Kedgley who provided the genesis for this bill. I note that we have already seen some action as a result of this bill coming into the House which is the disclosure of those 15 lobbyists with the access cards to come into Parliament. I think Holly Walker has outlined the Green Party’s arguments for the bill.  
I would like to stress the Green Party view that we see lobbying as a legitimate activity. It is an important part of our democracy and an important way that we as members of Parliament get our information. In a former life I lobbied on behalf of environmental campaigns. But it is something that can be done wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant; it is not a cliché to say it. Other countries are moving in this direction including the UK and the US. Canada has this disclosure or is having it. It is something that is only going to be beneficial for our democracy. It is something that the OECD has recommended. 
I would like to acknowledge what Holly said in this House which is that she is going into it with the principles of openness and transparency but she also wants a bill that is pragmatic and workable. So we urge the public and groups to have their say in the Government Administration Committee and thank the other parties for their support. Kia ora. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the member Holly Walker’s bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill. I think she has worked particularly hard in trying to get a piece of legislation that delivers the intent that is clearly behind it so I appreciate the time she has taken to discuss it with us. If I am honest I am not sure whether the drafting has got there yet but that is the advantage of the bill going to a select committee. 
I am a little cautious. I also do not think there is a significant problem in this country with lobbying. I disagree with the New Zealand First member in that I do not think that a lot of activity does go on behind closed doors. I mean if you walk around Parliament any day of the week or to a cafe across the road you will see MPs with people who could be deemed as lobbyists and it is all done out in the open. If I have a concern about this bill it is that it might actually drive activity in a way that is completely different from what we have now. I see that as one of the potential disadvantages. 
Defining a lobbyist is also particularly difficult. I agree with the comments Chris Hipkins made as an electorate MP. If someone who comes into my office is the chair of a school board of trustees a local business owner a trustee of a local community facility and a member of let us say Federated Farmers which hat do they have on and do I have to stop and ask them? Does that then stop the free-flow relationship that we have with that constituent as an electorate MP being able to learn and engage fully? So I am happy to support this bill in the first reading but there is still some work that needs to happen. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I too will be supporting this Lobbying Disclosure Bill to the Government Administration Committee. I think we have had an interesting day today with David Clark Simon O’Connor and Holly Walker being the members with the photocopied bills that have had luck at the ballot. As a result of that we have had some interesting debates. I reiterate the points that a number of my colleagues have made and that is that I will certainly not support this bill later if it is not clarified but I think those points have been made pretty clearly. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In reply I call the honourable member Holly Walker. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou ano e te Whare. I would like to thank members from across the House for the support indicated tonight for the Lobbying Disclosure Bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee for further consideration. I am delighted that we will have the opportunity to progress this bill to the next stage. As I articulated in my first call the bill aims to bring a measure of transparency to lobbying activity in New Zealand and to enhance trust in the integrity of Parliament in political decision-making. It is consistent with recent moves to increase the transparency and independence of MPs’ salaries and expenses and with an international trend towards the establishment of lobbying disclosure regimes. 
I want to thank those members who chose to engage constructively in the debate tonight and who heard the principles I outlined in my first speech and took those on board. I want to thank the honourable member Charles Chauvel for his Supplementary Order Paper 76 but let him know that I will not be referring this with the bill to the select committee. As I outlined in my opening speech I expect the bill to be substantively amended by the select committee. I flagged in my opening speech some of the areas that I believe warrant further attention including the concerns of NGOs and smaller organisations. In that context I think it is premature to propose specific amendments in the way that the member has done at this early stage. I do not wish to prejudice any of the outcomes of the discussion at the committee and for that reason I do not consider it would be helpful to refer to the committee this Supplementary Order Paper. 
However I want to reassure the member that I am going into the select committee process with an open mind about how the bill might best take into account the particular concerns of the not-for-profit and NGO sectors. I am aware of these concerns and I am confident that the select committee can address many of them. I would like to reiterate that my approach to this bill will continue to be guided by the principles that lobbying is a legitimate activity that an open and accessible Government and Parliament are vital that the public has a right to know who is lobbying MPs and Ministers and about what and that a lobbying disclosure regime must be workable and practical and that it must be fair and apply across the board. 
I want to thank Sue Kedgley once again for initiating this bill and for allowing me to pick up the mantle of this important work for greater transparency. I would also like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have met with me to discuss the bill. I invite others with thoughts or opinions to do the same and to make submissions to the select committee. I thank members for their support of this bill once again. I acknowledge that the real hard work is about to begin and I am looking forward to that and to engaging in discussions at the select committee to secure the best possible legislation for an open transparent practical and fair regime for the public disclosure of lobbying activity in New Zealand. Once again I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
Sittings of the House 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Since the debate on Holly Walker’s bill the Lobbying Disclosure Bill has finished I seek leave for the House to suspend a few minutes early so we can resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
 on behalf of  
Dr Russel Norman (Co-Leader—Green) 
: The Greens are very proud to be presenting this new bill. It is a bill that is absolutely critical—[ 
Interruption 
]  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am sorry. I need to advise the member that he needs to move that the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: I move— 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has started. He needs to keep going. 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: I move  
That the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
I intend it to be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does the bill say? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: What the bill says is that we need to be excluding foreign ownership from sensitive land. Successive Governments have been allowing through the Overseas Investment Office significant parcels of land—and sensitive land at that—to be moving into foreign ownership. It is absolutely imperative that this is changed. 
This bill is totally timely. New Zealanders have become very very concerned about losing control of our economic sovereignty following the attempted sale of the Crafar dairy farms into foreign ownership. This bill gives Parliament an opportunity to address these concerns. According to the figures provided by Terralink since 2005 the Overseas Investment Office has approved 312600 hectares for sale into overseas ownership and 280000 hectares of this land has been rural land. Labour-led and National-led Governments over the last decade have approved the sale of vast areas of New Zealand into foreign ownership. This bill provides an opportunity to put that to a stop. This bill is an opportunity for National and Labour to change course and to stem the flow of land into overseas ownership. There are strategic economic interests and this bill is about protecting strategic economic interests. New Zealand must protect its global advantage by keeping New Zealand land for New Zealand citizens permanent residents and companies. 
Our land is the source of a very large part of our exports to the world: food especially but also forestry. If the land and hence those profits fall into foreign ownership it will mean that New Zealand will no longer benefit from those exports. Food prices have increased dramatically over the last decade and if green economics is correct we live in a world of finite resources. The price of food will then continue to rise over the long term and hence the value of food-producing land will continue to rise. Hence it is no surprise that many Governments corporations and investment funds have been engaged in large-scale land-grabbing. In New Zealand we have seen the Chinese Government - backed corporation Shanghai Pengxin buying up Crafar farms but it is part of a global trend. 
Soaring grain prices in 2007-08 led to countries such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea worrying about their national food security and buying up overseas land. Then speculators and investors joined in. Oxfam says that more than 2 million square kilometres in the last decade have been grabbed; two-thirds of that in Africa. That is like Spain France Britain Italy and Germany all put together. That is huge. Governments around the world are buying up land to protect their national interests. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)