Volume 671 Week 69 - Wednesday 23 March 2011 
Volume 671 Week 69 - Wednesday 23 March 2011 
[Volume:671;Page:17523] 
Wednesday 23 March 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
By-Election 
Botany 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that pursuant to section 185 of the Electoral Act 1993 the name of the member elected to the House of Representatives for the Botany electoral district is Jami-Lee Matenga Ross. I understand that Jami-Lee Ross is present and wishes to affirm. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right. 
Members Sworn 
Jami-Lee Ross was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House. 
Visitors 
Indonesia—Services Committee House of Regional Representatives 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Services Committee of the House of Regional Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia led by Mr Bahar Ngitung is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Remedies for Overdue Replies 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention the fact that I have three written questions to the Minister of Education that are now 5 weeks overdue. I wrote to you almost 2 weeks ago. I have heard back from neither you nor the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is not a matter to be raised by way of a point of order in the Chamber. I apologise— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Well what are my remedies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not what I expect from an experienced member. I apologise to him if I have not responded more promptly to his inquiry. I will look into the matter immediately. It is not difficult to call my office. My door is always open. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not which groups are worse off? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was not the point of the tax switch. In most cases the tax switch more than compensated people for the increase in GST by reducing income taxes across the board and by increasing benefits Working for Families and superannuation. The truth of that can be shown by the fact that no party is campaigning on reversing the tax switch unless Mr Goff intends to adopt about his eighth position on this topic. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Are parents on average wages like Debra Bullock and Gemma Greig who each have two children in early childhood education and who respectively are paying $70 a week more and $60 a week more for their children’s early childhood education as a result of his cuts worse off? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Obviously I do not have the details of those individuals but I would say that the bulk of early childhood facilities did not need to increase their fees and the reason for that is they are not 80 percent teacher-led. Depending on where those individuals live they may choose to take their children to another early childhood facility. I might add that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday about when he would restore funding for early childhood facilities what he started talking about was in the never-never and that it was desirable not necessarily something that was going to happen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Now that petrol prices have reached $2.18 a litre does he stand by his position that the Government should do something to help the consumer with the price of petrol taken 3 years ago when he was Leader of the Opposition? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are doing everything we possibly can but even the member will accept that we are not responsible for what is happening in Libya or other parts of the world. What we have done is keep control of rising prices as is demonstrated by the fact that the CPI has been running at much lower levels than it did under a Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If he claims that he is not responsible for petrol prices why was he demanding 3 years ago that the Government do something to bring down petrol prices when he has only added to it by putting GST on the tax that people are already paying on petrol and making them pay still more? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said those who are paying more for petrol because of higher GST which is correct are also those who are getting more through the tax switch. If the member wants to reverse the position then he should fire up the bus get a petrol one and really make his point. 
Chris Tremain 
: How have tax cuts compensated people for price rises in the past? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough to hand I have—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Prime Minister. A member has the right to ask a question and the House does have the right to hear an answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough to hand I have an example. It is that between September 1999 and September 2008 prices rose by a total of 29 percent and there were no income tax cuts whatsoever— 
Chris Tremain 
: None. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —none. That means if Mr Goff is being consistent then he would have to admit that the Labour Government left people 29 percent worse off after its time in office. Actually the truth is that Labour left them much worse off than 29 percent but he should admit at least that bit. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he believe that middle-income families will be rationing milk for their children as he alleged 3 years ago when a litre of Home Brand milk from Foodtown was 20 percent cheaper than it is today? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What people do in their individual homes is not something I can be responsible for. But what I can say is let us take someone on the average after-tax wage. In the last 12 months it has risen from $39518 to $42214 which is a rise of 6.8 percent in real terms. Even including the GST increase prices rose by 4 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do I take it from the Prime Minister that he disagrees with the Salvation Army which has said that right across the country there is unprecedented demand for food parcels from people who are in work because incomes for people on low to middle incomes are rising much slower than the price of goods? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: On balance yes I do disagree with the last bit of it. I am not disagreeing that there are more people using food banks. I think that is the result of a recession that has bit pretty deeply in New Zealand. I can say that if one looks at average after-tax wage increases in the time this Government has been in office one can see it has risen 10 percent. In the entire time Labour was in office it rose 4 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the people being referred by Work and Income for budget advice today 30 percent of them are in jobs but they are being referred because they cannot cope with the rising cost of living on everything—the highest increase in the cost of living in 20 years—under his Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The best measure of rising prices in the economy is Statistics New Zealand’s representation through the CPI. It rose in the last 12 months by 4 percent. That included a 2.2 percent increase for GST. So net on net it was 1.8 percent because the rest was compensated for. The last year of the Labour Government alone was 5.1 percent. So how that can be the highest in 20 years is beyond me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is he denying Statistics New Zealand’s figures that show the cost of living has risen by the highest level in 20 years and at the same time for last year the year to June 2010 medium weekly income actually fell by 1.7 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member has his numbers wrong as he so often does so let us go back to the illustration of economics. Statistics New Zealand over the past 12 months has said that overall prices in the whole economy rose by an average of 4 percent. That included a 2.2 percent increase for GST which was on average a 1.8 percent increase. In the last year of Labour food prices rose 10.8 percent and prices across the economy rose 5.1 percent. If I go to Statistics New Zealand again and look at after-tax average wages they increased in the last 12 months from $39518 to $42214 which was an increase of 6.8 percent. You see the reason Labour does not want to look at the numbers is that that would tell them the truth. The truth is that yes times are tough but the Government is making quite a lot of concessions in terms of tax rates and that is helping— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table from Statistics New Zealand  
Hot Off the Press 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not table documents from Statistics New Zealand; they are available to all members. The Standing Orders— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very very long answer with lots of assertion in it and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition is given as much latitude— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Parker 
:—in his next question to make as much assertion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Hon David Parker 
:—and side comments as the Prime Minister did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should reflect on what he just said. For a start it was not a point of order. He claimed that the Prime Minister had made assertions in his answer. Answers are always—well good answers should contain some facts and that is what— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the Prime Minister appeared to be quoting from a Statistics New Zealand release. There is absolutely nothing out of order about that. If he is complaining that the Prime Minister went on a little long then perhaps I think I was getting a little concerned about that. Is there a supplementary question from the honourable Leader of the Opposition? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No. 
Hon Member 
: He’s finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That will do. [ 
Interruption 
] That was my fault.  
Budget 2011—Effect of Inflation 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that due to inflation no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It depends on which part of the Budget—and I am not trying to be clever about it. Some services will continue to get somewhere near an inflation adjustment such as health and education. Inflation adjustments will continue to be made to income support programmes such as superannuation and benefits which are very large components of the Government’s annual Budget. There will be services that will have no increase in spending and that means they will be cut in real terms. We have a strong expectation that everyone supplying public services needs to focus on providing more services for less money and that is not a new message. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Focusing on just one of the programmes that the Minister has identified how does he intend to cut $250 million from Working for Families without affecting middle-income earners when he himself pointed out in 2008 that: “Taking higher-income families out of WFF saves very little money”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the Government has signalled over the last month or so we have been looking at whether it is possible to restrict the very broad scope of Working for Families to higher-income families. The member may well be right that savings from that are not significant. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that in order to save $250 million from Working for Families a number that he has floated previously he would have to cut well into the middle-income brackets possibly removing all or some of the entitlements to families on a combined income of more than $60000? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure where the $250 million figure came from. The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see what progress the Government has made. As I think I said in the House yesterday there is unlikely to be radical changes to income support programmes including to Working for Families. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will he therefore rule out cutting Working for Families for someone on the average wage of $50000 a year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to be patient. He can be reassured that the Government is taking a very considered approach and we will continue to protect the most vulnerable and help New Zealanders through recession. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the alternative to his Government’s spending cuts and Labour’s proposal to increase debt is actually a third option which is to introduce a small temporary levy to fairly spread the cost of earthquake recovery across a large number of New Zealanders who could afford it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the alternative and I want to compliment the Greens on taking a principled position over the levy unlike Labour members who are not quite sure where they are going on it. The Government has outlined the reasons why it does not prefer to put a levy in place. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that John Key promised that “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government …” and does he intend to honour that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government will continue with the same approach it has had since it came into Government and that is to protect the income support measures that were put in place. We have in past Budgets trimmed those at the edges because we believe that we need to stop the rapid rise in the cost of those measures because that would be unsustainable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. I asked whether he can confirm that promise was made and whether he intends to honour it. That answer did not answer either of those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that it might sound like there is a simple answer to the question but I think the Minister did address the question the member asked. Clearly decisions have not yet been made. He has made that very clear in his answers. Decisions have not been made on the matter and I cannot force him to be more precise when decisions have not been made. That is the dilemma I have as the Speaker. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question asked whether he can confirm that promise was made. That decision has been made and either he can confirm it or he cannot or he does not know. Any one of those answers would have done. But no effort at all was made to address any of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will reflect that there were two parts to the question he asked and the Minister is obliged to address only one part of a supplementary question. The second part asked whether that alleged promise is to be kept and the Minister pointed out that decisions are yet to be made. I cannot force him to be more precise than that on a question like that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In considering his options of how to pay for the earthquake what would hurt a family with an income of $60000 a year more: permanently losing all or part of their $100 a week Working for Families payment or temporarily paying $3.50 a week in an earthquake levy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: With regard to an earthquake levy for the kinds of numbers we are talking about with the Christchurch earthquake there would have to be a pretty significant levy for quite a long time. I would not want to contest the member’s numbers but my guess is that it would be a lot higher than $3.50 a week. With regard to his issues around Working for Families the Government will make decisions based on the merits of those programmes on fairness on the amount of debt the Government has and on other spending priorities. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not true that the bill for the earthquake recovery will be passed on to New Zealanders one way or another and that the most compassionate way to pass on the cost is to spread the burden across a large number of people each paying a small amount rather than concentrating the burden on a small number of working families that are already struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure the member that nothing contemplated about changing Working for Families would go anywhere near paying the earthquake bill so equating the two is simply not correct. Paying the bill will be spread across all New Zealanders in a number of forms ranging from the Earthquake Commission levy higher insurance premiums for homeowners and higher debt obligations that will have to be met by taxpayers today and in the future. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that seeks to identify where Working for Families would have to be cut in order to save $250 million. 
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. 
Tax System Changes—1 April 2011 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A number of the tax changes that were announced in the last Budget come into effect from 1 April. The company tax rate will be cut to 28c in the dollar as will the tax rate faced by unit trusts life insurance policyholders and some other savings vehicles. A number of investment property - related tax changes will occur on 1 April including removing the ability of landlords to claim depreciation on most buildings. The definition of income for social assistance like Working for Families and the community services card will be tightened to stop people manipulating their circumstances in order to claim those forms of income support and there will also be higher tax rates on foreign owners of New Zealand assets to ensure they meet what we believe should be their full obligations in New Zealand. 
David Bennett 
: How will these changes help to rebalance the economy towards savings investment and exports and how will they make the taxation system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They are important measures for rebalancing our economy—for instance the higher effective tax rate on housing will reduce the probability that the New Zealand economy will repeat the housing binge that we went on in the mid-2000s which used up a lot of capital for no particular productive output. The lower company tax rate will mean we have a lower company tax rate than Australia and along with the exchange rate against Australia it will make our companies much more competitive than they have been in the past and that will help to increase our exports. 
David Bennett 
: How much will the 1 April changes cost? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Lowering the company tax rate will cost about $1.1 billion over the next 4 financial years. The reductions in tax on savings vehicles will cost about $170 million. These are more than offset by other measures which are expected to raise about $3 billion over the next 4 years. By 2013-14 the overall package of tax changes announced in the 2010 Budget will be just fiscally positive. 
David Bennett 
: Why was the tax package necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The tax package was necessary because through the last decade this economy became very unbalanced when our ability to earn income actually shrank and our ability to spend grew quite significantly. There are not many levers that a Government can pull but one that it can pull is the tax lever and it is important because it has pervasive incentive effects through the economy. So the tax package was designed to increase tax rates on consumption and housing speculation and lower tax rates on savings investments and exports. 
Budget 2011—Effect of Earthquake Costs on Operating Spending 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending when the Prime Minister said just 3 days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member is not correctly describing what was said. In the speech I gave on 17 March I made it quite clear that the Government did not have the choice of cutting spending to pay for the earthquake bills because we are incurring those right now. We made it clear that we would be borrowing money to pay those bills. At the same time and because of the extra debt we would be laying out a credible path back to surplus by 2014-15 and the Prime Minister’s statements about a zero Budget reinforced the Government’s clarity about that direction. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was he correct when he said “debt is the appropriate response” to the need to fund the rebuild of Christchurch because “It allows the burden to be borne over time just as the benefits to rebuilding Christchurch will be permanent.”; if so why is he now considering meeting the cost of the rebuild by cutting services to low and middle income earners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the member needs to think through what will actually happen with the Government’s books. We are taking on more debt—we have to. The Government is in the middle of spending a couple of hundred million dollars right now over this 4 to 6 week period just on income support for 56000 people in Canterbury. So we are incurring a debt. However we do need to get back to surplus and if we get back to surplus by 2014-15 we will still have a higher amount of Government debt because of the earthquake and that will be paid off over time. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister’s overriding objective is to balance the Government’s books without regard to the wider economy what advice has he received on the negative impact on jobs incomes and future tax revenues of a real-terms cut in expenditure in Budget 2011 and did he advise the Prime Minister of these negative effects before he announced savage Budget cuts on  
Q+A 
 on Sunday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I wish we had the problem that the member said we had—that is that we were bringing a Budget under control too quickly. In fact this year we are looking at running a Budget deficit of 8 to 9 percent of GDP which will be the largest Budget deficit ever run by a New Zealand Government as far as I can see. If large Budget deficits were the key to economic growth we would be booming with growth of 6 or 7 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked what advice he had received and whether he advised the Prime Minister of that advice before the Prime Minister’s announcements. He did not go near to addressing those questions Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the honourable member to repeat his question. If he wants an answer then he should make sure he asks just one question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What advice has the Minister received on the negative impact on jobs income and tax revenue of a real-terms cut in Budget 2011 and did he advise the Prime Minister of that advice before he announced savage Budget cuts on  
Q+A 
? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member think I should answer it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will answer please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The advice I have received is that in this current financial year ending 30 June 2011 we will run the largest Budget deficit ever. The Opposition has been saying that the economy is flat because we are cutting Government spending. In fact we will have one of the largest Budget deficits ever and if the Opposition’s theory was correct the economy would be growing at 6 or 7 percent. I have advised the Prime Minister of the advice I have received. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it now the Government’s policy to let the earthquake permanently reduce New Zealand’s potential output so that a real-terms cut in Budget 2011 is needed to reduce aggregate demand to match that reduced output? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Reopening of Schools and Early Childhood Education Centres 
5. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made reopening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that as of today other than two special schools and two private schools whose students have been accommodated elsewhere all schools in Christchurch are now open. This means that every student in Christchurch has a school to go to. In addition to that 74 percent of early childhood centres are now open. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What is the latest information on the number of schoolchildren who have returned to Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is pleasing that as of lunchtime today more than 1600 students—actually 1643 students—have returned to Christchurch. It was interesting to talk to students yesterday who were returning to Christchurch from Auckland. They were telling me how awesome it was that their school was now open and they could get back to some sort of normality. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What support is being provided for early childhood education centres to help them open again? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We have extended the emergency funding to help provide some financial stability for early childhood education centres whose children have temporarily moved away or who are being kept at home by their parents. In addition we have relocated 25 services into temporary accommodation. We are also providing traumatic support and counselling. We are supplying Portaloos where necessary and other logistical support and resources that centres might require. 
Sue Moroney 
: How many of the children returning to the early childhood education centres that have opened still face increased fees as a result of her budget cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: If that member cares to talk to the providers of early childhood services she will find that they are very grateful that this Government has extended the full emergency funding to them. In addition we are funding places for children who have enrolled in other centres throughout New Zealand. Many providers are trying just to keep their businesses together. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a straightforward question. The Minister did not address the question at all. I asked about the number of children returning to early childhood education facilities in Christchurch where fees had been increased and she made no reference to that in her answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the member to repeat her question so that everyone can— 
Hon Member 
: There’s supposition in there. You can’t— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Questions can be hypothetical. In fact the member just asked a simple question—as the member pointed out—as to how many of these children are facing higher fees. The question is capable of an answer and there was not much of an attempt to answer it. I ask the member to repeat the question. 
Sue Moroney 
: How many of the parents of the children returning to early childhood education facilities in Christchurch face higher fees? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that the parents of those children who are returning to newly opened early childhood services are so pleased to have those services open and available to them I can honestly say none of them have tried to play politics. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of asking questions to Ministers in the House is to hold them accountable. If the Minister will not address the question asked we have no accountability and this question time becomes a farce. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have some sympathy with the point of order the member has made. What compounded the Minister’s error in my view was adding the implication that the member asking the question was playing politics. Members are entitled to ask questions. My concern about the question is that it is a wee way away from the primary question and it may be that the Minister does not have that information with her today. But the Minister in answering questions—and there have been three of them; four counting the primary question—did mention children returning to their early childhood education centres. The question is a fair one. Answers have included information about children returning to early childhood education centres and to allege that the member is playing politics in asking a fair question is not on. I invite the Minister to answer the question. The member does not need to repeat it because we all heard it. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have no responsibility for any fees that any business may charge parents. 
Grant Robertson 
: Yes you do. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No I do not. What I have said as Minister of Education is that I have made sure the emergency funding that the Government pays to those services has continued now for 5 weeks. Whatever those businesses might care to charge or not charge parents has been nothing to do with this Government. However no parent has tried in any way to play politics about this Government’s policies. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister prepared to consider restoring the funding cuts to the Christchurch early childhood education centres which led to the higher fee increases in order to assist those families who are struggling? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There is no evidence of any higher fee increases in Christchurch and the answer is no. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. How has the formalised education relationship between the Ministry of Education and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu assisted in the post-earthquake responses to early childhood centres schools and kura? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Because of those relationships with Ngai Tahu it has been very easy to make contact with them to offer support. At this stage none has been requested but they are aware that the ministry is there and able to provide any of the services that I listed before should they require them and indeed if they require temporary premises. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Demolition of Buildings 
6. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: To date how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Since the state of national emergency was declared on 23 February I am advised by the national controller he has authorised 139 buildings in Christchurch for deconstruction or demolition to ensure immediate safety. Of those 139 buildings 17 were authorised without contact being made with the building owner although thorough efforts were made to make such contact. Of the 17 it is worthwhile noting that 12 of them were authorised before 8 March when the search for survivors and body recovery were the primary focus. It is important to note that building owners only are notified of pending demolitions because the information that the national controller has from the city council comes off ratepayer data. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What steps if any were taken to ensure that building or business owners were able to retrieve valuables personal effects records or other items before the buildings were demolished? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: We on this side of the House are mindful of people’s safety. Indeed in the initial instance our focus was on rescue and then of course on recovery. At that stage those were our primary objectives and goods etc. were not in consideration at that time. Now we are conscious of the fact that where possible business owners should be able to retrieve their goods and we are ensuring that that can happen as speedily as possible without any risk to anybody. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What legislative authority has been relied upon to undertake the demolitions referred to in the primary question? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. 
John Hayes 
: What reports has he seen regarding the unauthorised demolition of commercial buildings in Christchurch? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I have seen a number of reports where building and business owners have publicly discussed building demolitions. It is important to note that the national controller advises me that since the state of national emergency was declared on 23 February there have been no unauthorised demolitions of buildings within the cordon. I was particularly concerned to see articles quoting Christchurch property owner Anthony Gough in the  
Press 
 on 17 March and in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 20 March saying that one of his Hereford Street buildings was demolished without his permission. It is clear that Mr Gough was notified early on that the building was severely damaged in partial collapse and threatening neighbouring buildings. It was inspected by two separate engineers who recommended demolition. Mr Gough was contacted and accepted the recommendation that the building be demolished. At the end of these questions I intend to seek leave to table those papers. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen reports that businesses are likely to be given access to the cordoned zone from late this week and are those reports correct? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes that is correct. We are endeavouring to do our very best to ensure that business owners can have access to their business. We think it is important that that takes place as rapidly as we can allow it. I should say to the House that the 22 February earthquake was hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime event and that it is true that we need to ensure that we have a systematic and safe system for people to retrieve their goods. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he seen reports that one building owner found out about the demolition of her building while she was watching a video playing at the earthquake memorial service; if so is that good enough; if it is not what further action will be taken to prevent or minimise demolitions without notice? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: As I said earlier the devastating earthquake on 22 February is hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime event. There are issues that we need to deal with and this is one of them. In the case of that particular person I have seen those reports. I am prepared to concede and this may come as a surprise to some of my colleagues—indeed all of them possibly—that I am not actually totally perfect and that there are things we are learning as we make progress on this issue. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Passage 
7. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill has passed through all stages up to and including the Committee of the whole House last night. Ultimately whether the bill passes its third reading is up to the will of Parliament. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does he accept that the withdrawal of support from 95 percent of the Iwi Leaders Group the fact that only 1 percent of the submissions from Maori organisations actually supported the bill and the unmistakable message from the hikoi opposing the bill confirm the fact that Maori support for it is minimal and that by pushing ahead with it he may actually be jeopardising the future of National’s coalition partner the Maori Party? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: With the greatest of respect to the member I think he may be misrepresenting the level of support within Maoridom. Just today I have received a couple of messages from the iwi leaders telling me they support the legislation and they also support the Maori Party’s very principled position on the legislation. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree that if he were to change the name of the bill to the “Taku Tahae Moana Bill” or “My Stolen Seabed Bill” he might find that instead of 90 percent of Maoridom opposing this bill he might get 100 percent agreeing with the title at least? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I do not think that changing the name of the bill would do anything. This is a good bill. Most parties in this Parliament are agreed on the key aspects of it. Where the parties disagree is on the issue of codification of tests and whether one can negotiate agreements and that is where it stays. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What concrete evidence can he show the House that the bill has “wide support” from the public—the key requirement set down by the Prime Minister? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Concrete boots! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The concrete support I say to Mr Jones and Mr Boscawen of those who believe that the right of access to justice for Maori which was taken away in 2004 and which all parties now say should be restored is something that is extremely important. If they want me to provide actual numbers of that well that is an impossibility. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Given that he has just acknowledged that he cannot provide concrete evidence of wide public support can he advise when the Prime Minister told him that he need no longer worry about securing wide public support? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I disagree with the premise of the member’s question; it is mischievous and wrong. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the heritage building demolition report to the controller relating to the building owned by Anthony Gough. I am sorry I had meant to seek leave to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is not objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Impact on Employment Law Changes 
8. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What impact if any will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government’s employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I do not envisage further changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. The legislation should be flexible enough to cope with a range of circumstances. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the Government as part of its response to the 22 February earthquake include an exemption to the 90-day fire-at-will law to give workers in Christchurch job security at a time of great uncertainty? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The trial period has already proved to be successful. One report said it was responsible for approximately 13000 new jobs. I cannot understand why a Government would want to repeal such good positive legislation. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she consider exempting from the 90-day trial period workers who relocate to Christchurch as part of the rebuilding effort in order to attract the skilled workers that will be needed? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have already said I do not envisage changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. That should be sufficient to answer the member’s query. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will an employer’s consent to access need to be sought by union representatives in Christchurch seeking to establish whether union members are safe in their workplaces or will she amend or suspend that requirement under her amended Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have said I do not envisage further changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. Can I extend an invitation to the member to visit Christchurch. I am sure she will be pleased to see that on the ground there has been wonderful cooperation between Cantabrians including between employers employees and unions. Disaster has struck Canterbury and Cantabrians have pulled together. 
Darien Fenton 
: What steps have been taken to ensure the Employment Relations Authority can resume its operations given that a number of hearings have been postponed due to the effects of the earthquake and a backlog is building up? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member is correct that some hearings have indeed been postponed but the reasons for that can be varied. Some are because of disruption to employees and some because of disruption to employers. The Department of Labour is working very hard to minimise that disruption but I am sure the member will appreciate the enormous task ahead in Canterbury and in Christchurch. 
Prisons—Smoking Ban 
9. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been made towards the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that 3 months out from the smoking ban being implemented in prisons more than 1800 prisoners have started using patches and lozenges to help them to stop smoking. Five voluntary non-smoking units have been established at sites across the country allowing prisoners to quit their habit away from the proximity of smokers. Not only are prisoners giving up but the staff are joining them. Some staff are receiving nicotine replacement therapy directly through Quitline and 166 officers have received treatment through assessment clinics set up in prisons. The department is working very closely with the Quit Group and the Ministry of Health to prepare for the ban which takes effect on 1 July. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the benefits to prisoners and staff of banning smoking in our prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Many. Smoking in prisons represents a very real risk to both staff and prisoners particularly from passive smoking. The level of second-hand smoke and toxins is up to 12 times higher in prisons than in the homes of smokers. In the past prisoners have used lighters to melt items such as toothbrushes to make dangerous weapons. Prisoners also roll up balls of toilet paper light them and throw them at staff. The risk posed by lighters and matches was clearly illustrated last month when two corrections officers at Christchurch Women’s Prison received burns when rescuing a prisoner after she deliberately set fire to her mattress with a cigarette lighter. Over the past year there have been around 50 incidents of fire or arson in New Zealand prisons. Banning smoking will reduce all of these risks and improve the health and safety of our hard-working and excellent corrections staff. 
Broadband Urban Initiative—Progress 
10. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 It remains the Government’s intention that 75 percent of New Zealanders—mostly urban residents—will have access to ultra-fast broadband to the home by 2019 as stated during the 2008 election campaign. That timetable is the one we are continuing to work to. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree with submissions by InternetNZ and the Commerce Commission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that the price of copper-based broadband services will increase in urban areas by an estimated 20 percent as a result of the Government’s telecommunications legislation; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it is highly unlikely because of the competitive effects of the Fibre to the Home package. Although the unbundled copper local loop is the issue that I think the submitters are referring to competition with the fibre access network will ensure that the price increase does not occur. 
Clare Curran 
: Can he guarantee that his new telecommunications laws will not result in the cost of those existing copper services going up and a freeze in investments in service improvement given that the bulk of New Zealanders will not receive ultra-fast broadband in their homes until at least the end of 2019 and will therefore be reliant on the existing copper-based services? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member is missing the point in terms of the investment in copper services. The point of the initiative is to encourage further investment in the Fibre to the Home services. New investment in copper services has been declining as a result of sub-loop unbundling and the ADSL work being done by Telecom so Fibre to the Home is where I think most of the investment will occur in the future. 
Clare Curran 
: Does the migration of New Zealand consumers from copper to fibre services require the provision in his new law that prices for current copper-based broadband services be re-averaged resulting in an up to 20 percent hike in urban prices in order to achieve the Government’s policy objective of 75 percent of New Zealanders receiving ultra-fast broadband? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The averaging of unbundled copper local loop is something that would be required because otherwise the rural subscribers would potentially be stranded on the copper network. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually the cross-subsidy is currently between urban and rural services. Averaging the unbundled copper local loop is the only practical way of dealing with this situation. Again I point out that the very moderate cost as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today of between $47 and $80 per month with fibre access will ensure very competitive pricing. 
Clare Curran 
: How can the public be reassured that they are not paying prices that are too high for copper-based broadband services now and for ultra-fast fibre broadband in the future given that his legislation removes the ability for independent scrutiny from the Commerce Commission on pricing; is it just because he says so? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and in fact the wholesale prices that have been advised to the market—firstly by me prior to Christmas last year and then subsequently in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today—point out that those prices will be very very competitive with existing copper services and the Government has made a very strong effort through Crown Fibre Holdings to attain those prices. The point is that the only bit over which the Commerce Commission will not have oversight is those prices. They will be agreed by contract between Crown Fibre Holdings and the bidders and will not be able to be put up. 
Public Transport Auckland—Prime Minister’s Statements 
11. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statements that “The Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand’s public transport networks.” and “We will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and yes. I have just come from the Auckland Unleashed summit where we were discussing the Auckland Spatial Plan and where I specifically outlined the Government’s commitment to public transport in Auckland. 
Metiria Turei 
: If the Minister is now confirming that his Government supports the Auckland Council’s vision of a compact eco-city supported by strong public transport why then is virtually all new Government transport spending for the next decade dedicated to motorways? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not quite sure that the member is right in the assertions that she makes. The purpose of the spatial planning meeting today in Auckland was to get all the stakeholders round the table to look at what the future of Auckland might be like. As I said in my remarks made in Auckland there will be a wide range of aspirations from Aucklanders about where they live and what form of transport they use. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that in the last decade the central business district of Auckland has attracted more residents and new office jobs than any other part of Auckland City is that not a very clear sign that the aspiration of many Aucklanders is that they do not want to live on lifestyle blocks far out from the central city and have long expensive commuter drives that include being stuck in traffic? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I just said there will be a range of aspirations from a range of Aucklanders. I am not entirely sure that the member is right about where in Auckland the bulk of jobs are created. My information may be out of date but when I looked at it prior to the election back in 2008 from memory only about 11 percent of jobs were in downtown Auckland. One of the issues with Auckland is that it is extremely spread out and jobs are spread out right across the Auckland region. People do a lot of commuting as they live in one place play in another and work in another. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: To the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check. I take it that this is using an Independent member’s supplementary question? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. I apologise for that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How reliable are his commitments to Auckland public transport given the forecasted decrease in the New Zealand Transport Agency fund due to petrol excise tax revenue being down? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We intend to honour the commitments we have made and that was one of the things I said to Aucklanders today. It is also one of the reasons why we always have to be careful with promises we make and make sure that whatever promises we make can be backed up in terms of funding and also with an appropriate benefit-cost ratio. I know that it is quite a foreign concept to the Opposition to have to find the money before one spends it but on this side of the House that is what we do. 
Metiria Turei 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just check. According to my records Labour has had 27 supplementary questions today which means it had one of the Independents’ supplementary questions. The Greens have had seven supplementary questions today which means they have had one of the Independent members’ supplementary questions. I am not sure whether a—[ 
Interruption 
] Two extra supplementary questions have been used today. There are no more. Both questions available from the Hon Chris Carter have been used today. Labour used one of them and the Greens have already used one of them. Therefore there is no other—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me just check because something is not tallying here. The Hon Shane Jones was using one of the Progressive’s supplementary questions. I beg your pardon. If I am to accept these additional supplementary questions I should be advised beforehand but that is for the future. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and yes we understand and we do advise the office. Will his Government listen to the people of Auckland and prioritise public transport over the new motorway spending his Government plans so that Auckland has a chance to become the world-class city that it can be that does not have to rely on increasingly and predictably expensive oil imports? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Once again the member makes assertions for the people with whom she hangs around in Auckland and not necessarily for all Aucklanders. Building roads allows public transport to take place because the last time I looked buses travelled on roads. Let us take the Puhoi to Wellsford road which the Government has committed to. It is a highway of national significance. On that road on any one given day are 27000 people using it. When it comes to commuter rail in Auckland on any one given day 24500 people use it. So it looks to me like the Government has its commitments and its priorities in the right place. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Given his stated commitment to public transport in Auckland why does he allow his Minister of Transport to be so antagonistic against the super-city mayor Len Brown? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: He is not antagonistic. As I said earlier I know that it is a foreign concept to Labour. I know it promised $1.3 billion worth of tax cuts with no idea where the money would come from. I know it promised $5 billion worth of spending with no idea where the money would come from. I know that when Labour members get the acid put on them they say it is desirable. I can assure the member that the last time I saw the Minister of Transport and the Mayor of Auckland they were in some sort of group hug. That is not antagonistic. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again you have allowed the Prime Minister to rant at the Opposition and it turned into a speech. After about half an hour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and that will be enough interjecting from the ministerial benches. The member should reflect on the question that was asked. The question that was asked alleged that the Minister was being antagonistic to the Mayor of Auckland. That is to invite a response that is perhaps not quite what the member might have wanted but with that kind of political question there is no way I can stop an answer that is pretty political. The remedy for that lies in the hands of the questioner. Members will notice that today when a member on my left asked a very straight question I put some acid on the Minister to answer it. But where a question alleges that a Minister is being antagonistic to a mayor do not blame the Speaker if the Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—gets a little bit political when answering it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order was not that the Prime Minister was being political; he was quite entitled to be political in response to a question. My point was that once again it was not a concise reply. Standing Order 377 states that answers ought to be concise. For the second time this sitting you have allowed the Prime Minister a great degree of latitude to make a speech rather than— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet for good reason so there will not be this kind of interjection. I am sure that the member does not really want me to implement that Standing Order too tightly because I would be ruling out so many supplementary questions— 
Hon David Parker 
: Just evenly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows not to interject when I am on my feet. I believe that the member is implying that I have not been even-handed. Twice today I have invited members to repeat questions where I believed that Ministers had not answered the question adequately. On another occasion I actually asked the Minister specifically to answer the question. That member who has been in this House a while should think back to the reign of previous Speakers; I have never known that done by previous Speakers and I did that in just one question time. So I think the House is doing rather better in terms of opportunity for the Opposition to get straight questions answered. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Counselling Services 
12. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 A key focus has been on providing counselling support. We have had up to 400 counsellors available on the ground by phone and many others around the country. Since February we have given over half a million dollars. I make the point that that counselling service is free so just shout out to Cantabrians that if they need it it is there it is available and there are resources there for them. 
Todd McClay 
: What impact has the earthquake had on the ability of non-governmental organisations to operate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This is a moving number but I understand that at the moment about 39 percent of non-governmental organisations have red-stickered premises. This is obviously of some concern in terms of their capacity to look after members of the public who need help. For those impacted though we have set up temporary rooms at the netball clubs and are looking at other measures for them. 
General Debate 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. When it was announced that the United Nations Security Council was endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya many New Zealanders were pleased. They had been cheering the rebel movement as it liberated towns held by the dictator Gaddafi. However it then seemed that Gaddafi’s counter-offensive might be successful mainly because he controlled the air and had more tanks and artillery pieces. The subsequent air strikes by French British and American planes have weakened Gaddafi’s forces but there are also fears from several Governments about where this might all be leading to. 
Five very important Governments—Germany India Brazil Russia and China—abstained during the vote on the Security Council resolution party because it gives such a very broad mandate to any Government taking military action against Libya. Although the resolution talks about a no-fly zone it also allows Governments “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians” in Libya. Basically the French and the British are taking this to mean any military action against any targets. Coalition commanders were quoted yesterday in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as saying that this could include ground intervention if Gaddafi stays in power. Yesterday the British Prime Minister David Cameron refused to rule out assassinating Gaddafi. Our Government was wrong to endorse a UN resolution that is not really about just a no-fly zone but is actually more about regime change. It was a dishonest resolution it has divided the world community and it will not necessarily lead to a good outcome for Libya. 
On a political level the resolution has been a boon to Gaddafi. The dictator can now sidestep the issue of democracy and present the war as one against foreign invaders from the same countries that back Israel and had previously invaded other Arab countries—most recently Iraq. Gaddafi will also play up all the civilian casualties that will inevitably result from the strikes. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very difficult to hear the speaker with conversations in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the point of order raised by the honourable member. Would members please if they are having private conversations go into the lobby to have them. It is discourteous to the member speaking for members to hold conversations in the House and the noise makes it hard for other members to hear. Keith Locke I apologise. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Politically the resolution has probably strengthened Gaddafi’s hold on the most important city Tripoli and we may be heading to a military and political stalemate in Libya. 
The problem with foreign interventions bent on regime change is that the results are unpredictable and can be very bad. As we have seen in Iraq and in Afghanistan more bloodshed followed when the United States brought about regime change and installed compliant leaders. 
There is also cynicism that the motives of the invading powers previously in relation to Iraq and to Afghanistan and now to Libya might have more to do with oil supplies than with democracy. The same Governments bombing Libya give their full backing to the Saudi regime which is arguably even more oppressive than Gaddafi’s. What criticism did we hear when Saudi troops invaded Bahrain 9 days ago to help crush the democracy movement there? We will not hear any criticism from Obama Cameron or Sarkozy as long as the oil keeps flowing from the Saudi fields. 
The Greens say yes we should stand with the democratic forces in Libya confronting the Gaddafi dictatorship. We support our Government implementing international sanctions imposed on the regime a ban on travel to New Zealand by members of the regime and the freezing of any assets held by Gaddafi and his cronies. The Greens support the suspension of education exchange programmes now operating between New Zealand and Libya. Unlike Western Governments including New Zealand’s the Greens are consistent in their support for the emerging democracy movement in many Middle-Eastern countries whether it be in Libya Tunisia Egypt Yemen Bahrain Algeria Morocco Oman Syria Iran or Saudi Arabia. 
It was interesting that when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians were out on the streets our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs did not endorse the call for Mubarak to go. Even moral support for regime change was not on the agenda. Instead they praised Mubarak’s statesmanship and called for restraint from the demonstrators. We will probably be waiting for a while to hear our Government give any moral support to democratic opponents of the Saudi regime. 
Step by step the people of Tunisia and Egypt are democratising their political systems. The people themselves own the process and are showing an enthusiasm for democracy that is truly inspiring. It is a better and more effective path to democracy than one brought about by planes or invading forces from Western nations. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I acknowledge the Greens’ principled stance on those issues alongside its principled stance on proposing an earthquake levy. The Greens create circumstances that embarrass Labour into stating some position on how it would pay for not just the earthquake but also the many other promises that it is now making. 
Many of us attended the Christchurch earthquake memorial service last week and I take this opportunity to acknowledge particularly the presence of the Australian Prime Minister the Australian Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Governor-General. It was a generous gesture on their part all three of them to do something that I understand they have not done before and that is to all leave the country at the same time to come to New Zealand without seeking necessarily the high profile that one would expect overseas leaders to seek. 
As the dust clears literally from the earthquake the impact of it on the economy and on the Government is also becoming a bit clearer. The Government is determined to continue with its longer-term programme to rebalance the economy. Although the earthquake is a significant setback it is not sufficient a knock to push us off course and at times like these we need to remind ourselves of just what that course is. As we talked about in question time the Government has set out to rebalance this economy with the assistance of New Zealand households and businesses who after all make the decisions that actually change the economy. We need to rebalance the economy because it got way out of balance. We had excessive consumption and we had a housing boom—both of which were funded by very rapid growth in debt particularly in the private sector. So in 2007 for instance total credit in this economy grew by something like 25 percent. This year it is growing by about 1 percent. 
New Zealanders have realised that excessive reliance on debt for a sense of wealth and well-being is not sustainable. The global financial crisis has brought that to a pretty sudden halt. At the same time we need to beef up the earning capacity of this economy. From 2004 onwards our export sector shrank by about 10 percent through to 2010 while our domestic and spending sectors grew by about 15 percent. The shrinkage of our export sector had meant that there would be no new jobs in the export sector for 10 years. All the new jobs that were created through the first decade of this century were in the non-tradable non-competitive sector dominated by Government and the extravagant management and wasteful spending of the previous Government. 
The final part of the tax package which comes into effect on 1 April this year is one way of helping to rebalance the economy and I think the tax package has had some effect. People are being more careful with their spending. They would have been anyway but the increase in GST has certainly created more of an incentive for them to be careful. We reduced the tax on income back in October but have now reduced the taxes on companies and on savings vehicles and have increased the taxation on housing. All of this is designed over the longer term not to put money in people’s pockets straight away although most New Zealanders are better off as a result of the tax changes but to push this economy in the direction of more saving more earning more exporting and more investing. 
The impact of the earthquake is quite significant and it will somewhat delay that process. But I do not think there is any debate really even from the Opposition about the direction of the plan this Government has for the economy. Opposition members may argue about bits and pieces but we are staying on track. We will absorb the impact of the earthquake and stick to the plan. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 “This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for.” Those were the words of Bill English the Minister of Finance in December 2008 on taking the Treasury benches. He was talking about the ability of New Zealand to handle the global financial crisis. “New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.” he said in December 2008 when taking the Treasury benches. So 2½ years on while the rest of the world comes out of the crisis New Zealand heads back into a double-dip recession. Make no bones about it—the second recession is National’s recession. It is of National’s making. National has been squandering what had been saved for the rainy day. Even before the two earthquakes struck Christchurch New Zealand’s economy had stalled. Now it is all the earthquakes’ fault! In fact National’s response to the growing gloom in New Zealand about our economy and this Government’s lack of a plan about what to do about it is the earthquakes’ fault. 
So what has the Government decided to do? What is the grand plan? It is to slash and burn the programmes that help the most vulnerable in New Zealand. There has been no thought about how to grow this economy and no plan on how we can stimulate exports new businesses innovation or skills training—nothing for those who already have so little. The Government was prepared to give away $22 billion in 4 years in tax cuts; it was prepared to give away $22 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in New Zealand. But the Government has no plan to get us out of the hole we are in right now. There is no suggestion that those who are the wealthiest in this country should give some back when this economy is so sluggish. 
The earthquake is now being dressed up to provide the cover for John Key’s cuts to programmes. He promised when in Opposition that a National Government would keep those programmes. He promised he would not cut Working for Families. Well what is the first off the block when it comes to cutting programmes? It is Working for Families. We were repeatedly told by Bill English as Opposition spokesperson on finance and John Key that they would not touch Working for Families. In fact Bill English said he would not change Working for Families because struggling families needed certainty. He also said that careful analysis of Working for Families showed that taking high-income families out of it saved very little money. He said further that any policy to take higher-income families out of Working for Families would affect only a handful of families and they would be families with four or more children. He said he wanted to give them certainty. 
What promise did the Prime Minister make about Working for Families? He said that National had considered Working for Families very carefully and “the conclusion we’ve reached is”—listen to this—“that there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National Government”—no changes at all under an incoming National Government. That is a hollow promise and it will be a broken promise if National changes Working for Families for a handful of people which will not bring much money back to the coffers to address the problems that this economy has. 
Now on the block is Whanau Ora. I will be interested to know what the Maori Party thinks about this. John Key said yesterday that he is looking at scaling back Whanau Ora. What did Government members say about Whanau Ora? Tony Ryall said it was going to be one of the biggest innovations in social services. Paula Bennett said she was excited about the prospects of Whanau Ora and the positive difference it could make. Why is Whanau Ora one of the first programmes on the block under a National Government? 
We know that this Government has no plan that we are going backwards under this Government and that it is time Government members faced up to the fact that the Government is not helping and supporting those who struggle the most in New Zealand. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I had the absolute privilege to attend not one but in fact two memorial services in Christchurch last week. Along with many other people in this House I was humbled to be able to attend on Friday on a beautiful Christchurch day the national memorial service for the people who lost their lives in the Christchurch earthquake. It was an absolutely wonderful service and a service that I think was very fitting for the people of Christchurch and for the families and friends of those who died. 
The other service I attended last week was also sad and poignant yet wonderful. The service was held on the Monday night at the beginning of the week and it was particularly for the victims who were either staff or students of King’s Education who were in the CTV building. Many in the House will know that approximately 80 people have either lost their lives or are missing as a result of being staff or students of King’s Education. It was a much smaller service but still quite large; several hundred people were there. We were able to get a glimpse of the lives and aspirations of the staff and students at that institution. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the surviving staff members and the surviving directors of King’s Education for the way they have coped with the tragedy that has befallen their institution. 
Two videos were shown at the Friday service. The first one at the start was of the damage to Christchurch particularly to the central business district but also around the city. The second video was shown at the end of the service and I thought it encapsulated what I have come to know as the indomitable spirit of Christchurch people. It was a marvellous video which showed people not just surviving in adversity but also having the opportunity to show their spirit their courage and sometimes their humour as they began the very big task of rebuilding their city. Although we are not stopping the grieving process it is time for us all to turn to look at the rebuild of Christchurch. It will be a very big job—a very big job not just in the term of this Government but after the upcoming election in the next 3 years of the Government of the day as well. 
I turn to the portfolio areas that I am particularly familiar with. In the area of tertiary education not only has the private sector which was stationed in the middle of town been very seriously affected but also affected is the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology the big polytechnic in the city which is inside the area of the original cordon. I pay tribute to the way the management and staff have that institution up and running again. Canterbury University of course is a very very big institution and it has been very significantly affected. The university has its students learning under canvas at the moment and for the next several weeks in Christchurch to show that it can get the show back on the road. There are also other institutions a little less affected like Lincoln University and Otago University which have not only looked after their own people but offered help to other institutions. 
I have looked at the transport sector as well. On Thursday I again had the opportunity to go around and see for myself the state of the roading system in Christchurch and I can tell the House that there is a huge amount of work to be done there for all of us. The telecommunications sector has been a bit of a sleeping giant in the earthquake but I pay tribute to the companies that were involved in terms of how quickly they were able to get the telecommunications system up and kept it going—particularly the cellphone systems in the city—not just at the time of the earthquake but 3 or 4 days later when we were all running around trying to get the right number of generators to cellphone sites to ensure that they kept going. 
The rebuild of Christchurch is a very big job and as the Minister of Finance has said the Government will be committing very very significant sums of money up front. Then we will have to work out how to bring the books back into balance. That is what this Government is focused on right now. We have rejected the idea of an earthquake levy because it would just add to people’s cost of living as the economy comes out of recession. But instead we have said that we will watch very carefully our Government expenditure in the years ahead. That programme was already being worked on. It was signalled in the January state of the nation speech made by the Prime Minister and it will be accelerated to ensure not just that the Government gets its books back into balance but that international lenders who lend money to us as a country can also have confidence in the future of New Zealand and in our ability to recover from this earthquake. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The Opposition joins with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport who has just spoken in acknowledging the Christchurch memorial service the loss of life from the earthquake and of course the presence of the Australian Prime Minister Opposition leader and Governor-General which was deeply appreciated. 
But that is where our agreement with the Minister of Finance stops because his next statement was that National was going to stay the course. Well that raises the obvious question: which course will National stay? Is it last week’s course when it was putting the whole cost of the earthquake on “Bill’s bill”—putting it on the plastic carrying it all as debt? That was too much for the Greens who came out and said that National was fiscally irresponsible and the International Monetary Fund agreed. That was too much for John Key; he had to go on nationwide TV overrule his Minister and say: “No you’re not Bill; I’m slashing your Budget to zero.” As Russel Norman has pointed out today that is a real-terms cut that will hurt New Zealanders deeply. 
Then Mr English trotted out the same old furphy about rebalancing. But I say that National’s recession is because of National’s mismanagement. It is not because of rebalancing because the bad news which was proved by the Reserve Bank last week is that rebalancing has not actually started yet. Households and businesses in New Zealand owe more debt today than they did last year and more debt today than they did when National took office and under National will not actually start turning a corner until 2013. So it is not rebalancing—at least not yet. The economy is going backwards because the Government has no plan. It is changing and it is lurching all over the road as we have seen in the last couple of weeks. 
But at a time when commodity prices are at all-time highs and when our biggest trading partners—Australia and Japan—are doing well we should be moving forward. But we are not because National has mismanaged the economy. There is no growth jobs are being lost families are under pressure prices are rising and people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. 
Su’a William Sio 
: We’re going backwards. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We are going backwards. It is time that this Government took responsibility. Economic commentators have pointed out the obvious. On 13 March one commentator wrote: “If bombed-out economies like the US and the UK are showing strong signs of investment-led recovery why can’t we?” and a further comment was made that “This new recession is the Government’s—it must own up.” We agree. There is no plan. The tax switch did not work. Giving $43 million a week in tax cuts to the top 10 percent of taxpayers was lunacy. It took that money out of circulation it meant people lost jobs and it added to debt at a time when New Zealanders could least afford it. 
The Minister of Finance said he inherited a reasonably strong position and he did. Labour left the books in credit to the tune of 4.7 percent of GDP as he said for a rainy day. The rainy day came but unfortunately he milked it for tax cuts for people who did not need them. That is why National is having to cut the Budget in 2011 to zero which is a real-terms cut. 
Here is another lurch. Just a month ago National said that the biggest problem facing the country was savings and that this Budget would be about savings. That was pretty ironic then because it had already cut a billion dollars out of KiwiSaver incentives and had cut—wait for it—$42 billion cumulatively out of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How much? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: National took $42 billion out of the Superannuation Fund according to the Treasury documents put to the Finance and Expenditure Committee by the Retirement Commissioner taking the level of funding down to only 57 percent of its previous level. That is incredible. National has beggared New Zealand superannuation. 
Then National members said that this Budget would be about savings and that they were going to implement the Savings Working Group report. Guess what? The tax sweeteners in the Savings Working Group report all cost around a billion dollars each like indexation. How will they afford that under John Key’s zero Budget? Where is that billion dollars coming from? It might be coming from KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver has been the single most successful savings plan in New Zealand history and this Government is going to wreck it. Government members will wreck it even more than they have because they do not know their economic backside from their economic elbow. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging Christchurch. It is now over a month after the devastation and I will say exactly where we are on responding to people’s needs and also what a movement there has been to respond quickly and to get help to where it needs to be. There is the earthquake support subsidy. Nearly $146 million has been paid into that subsidy and I will tell members where that subsidy is going. It is for those businesses that need support. There have been nearly 9000 applications supporting more than 45000 employees and 10600 sole traders and contractors. The list goes on. 
I will talk about the way we have had to shift those resources to where they are needed and what that means for the rest of the country because as identified we are still in tough times. We still have people needing the State to lean on. People still need to walk into Work and Income to get that sort of support. We still want to make sure that superannuitants are being paid and are getting the level of service they need. We have had to make sure that that was happening. 
We needed to make some changes. We have had to make some changes over the last couple of years and I stand up quite proudly to talk about those changes. We needed to be more efficient we needed to be smarter at how we work with people we needed to put more into the front line and we needed to look at how we were actually helping people as they came in. In the worst of times we have shortened waiting times for those who go into Work and Income and we can be proud of that. 
When it comes to this Budget we will be making changes. We will be making changes we will be demanding efficiencies and we will also be looking at what is and is not working. We talk about it a lot but it is truly evidence-based to say that we are making a difference for those families who genuinely need it. 
We heard from Annette King that she has the silver bullet for how she will help under-5-year-olds. Well I say what a load of rubbish. We need to go through step-by-step incremental changes and make tough decisions to cut and shut down what is not working. It is about stepping up making a difference and putting children at the centre of what we do for them. It is not about throwing more money at a problem standing back crossing one’s fingers and hoping and thinking it will be an easy call to make. These are the tough decisions that Labour members under 9 years of a Labour Government were not prepared to make. We did not see the tough decisions being made for the families who needed them most. Now those members sit on the Opposition benches and they think that they can throw out a few sexy headlines for the newspapers and that will make a difference for the children who are truly broken and hurting out there. 
Under this Government we have had 12 new initiatives that are evidence-based and that are making a direct difference for those children who need them—a direct difference for those children who truly need them. The initiatives are not in the headlines we see on the front page of the newspapers. They are not the ones that numerous stories will be written about. They are the ones that are fundamentally making a difference on the ground. We are working with the right professionals the right people for those children. These initiatives are the ones that will make the most difference. 
We will also do some of the other stuff that is hard to do. I will give some examples of what we have done already. We looked at the Training Opportunities Programme. Let us look at what that was. It was run through tertiary education but we took some of that back under the Ministry of Social Development and looked at what needed to be done for those sorts of programmes in both cities and provinces. We said that we would be focusing that spending on employment where it needs to have an education focus. All the evidence tells us that industry partnerships relating training to the jobs that young people are going into will help not just those young people but anyone else on an unemployment benefit more than any other programme we do. Let us get back to the evidence base. What a difference it will make! 
Under the Ministry of Youth Development which I am also responsible for the range reach and relevance initiative that we have run in the last 12 months has meant that in some cases we have quadrupled the number of young people we are working with. That has meant being smarter and it has meant getting an evidence base for the number of weeks we should work with a family. 
We hear a lot that things do not need more money; we just need to work smarter. Things do not need to have a lot more dollars thrown at them but tough decisions do need to be made. I am proud to be part of a Government that will stand up and make those decisions. We will hear from the bleeding hearts who say: “Oh my goodness my favourite programme or my favourite little neighbourhood thing is getting a little shaky.” I say that we should make the tough decisions and put the children at the foremost of what we are doing. We can make a significant difference not just for them but for our economy as well. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Along with many members of this House I had the privilege of joining tens of thousands of New Zealanders—mostly Cantabrians one would assume—in Hagley Park last Friday for the memorial service to honour those who died in the tragedy that struck Christchurch Lyttelton and surrounding areas on 22 February. In every respect it was a deeply moving and memorable experience. As others have done in earlier debates I place on record my personal condolences and aroha to the relatives and friends of the deceased and my sympathy and best wishes to all who are recovering from the terror and pain inflicted by the earthquake and in some cases from horrific injuries. 
I also acknowledge and thank the hundreds of wonderful people many of them volunteers who have worked tirelessly over the past month often ignoring their own personal losses and setbacks to support the recovery effort to comfort heal and assist those who have suffered bereavement injury and loss. Although we all wish that their work had not been necessary and pray that the aftershocks will soon come to an end the selflessness stoicism courage and commitment of all who have played a part in the rescue and recovery efforts to date have been outstanding. 
I too have been very proud to be a New Zealander over the past month. I also thank those who have very generously supported the thousands of earthquake appeal fund-raising activities that have already been held and that will continue to be held throughout the country for some time to come. The Lord loves a cheerful giver and New Zealanders have once again shown themselves to be very generous. 
In light of the incomprehensible devastation and misery that has subsequently been inflicted upon so many people in Japan as a consequence of the horrific earthquake and tsunami that struck that country earlier this month it is also appropriate to acknowledge our friends from many other countries who assisted our work in Christchurch and then went to the aid of the Japanese. We have seen many humbling demonstrations of heroism in recent weeks. I offer my sympathy and best wishes to the Government and the people of Japan at this very sad and challenging time for their country. 
The service held in Hagley Park on Friday was an important opportunity for the families of victims to grieve and for the rest of the country to offer them our comfort and support. It was an honour to have Prince William with us representing the Queen. I also acknowledge the great compliment that the Governor-General of Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbott paid to New Zealand in attending the service. Responses to a staggering series of disasters in both countries in recent times have revealed that the trans-Tasman relationship is as solid as it has ever been. 
For me the highlight of the service last Friday was Hayley Westenra’s unaccompanied rendition of “Amazing Grace”. It was hauntingly beautiful and seldom can those lyrics have struck a more poignant chord. Dave Dobbyn Dame Malvina Major Patrick Manning—the young chorister with whom Dame Malvina sang “Pie Jesu” so well—and several other artists speakers and representatives of many faith communities all contributed to an unforgettable service that was a dignified and fitting tribute with a distinctively Kiwi flavour. 
I lived in Christchurch for 3 years in the mid-1980s and I have fond memories of the beauty of that city’s natural environment and its distinctive architecture. I worshipped in the Anglican cathedral on several occasions and I attended a friend’s wedding in the Catholic cathedral. To see those historic and beautiful icons of that city so badly damaged is heartbreaking. Those of us who no longer live in Christchurch can only try to imagine the distress of those whose homes communities and workplaces have been destroyed or badly damaged. What we can do and must do however is support them in every way we can to rebuild their city and livelihoods. We will do that not as some have suggested by way of a burdensome levy but by a combination of responsible borrowing and reallocated capital spending as was signalled earlier this week by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. 
As earlier Government speakers have already noted helping to support and rebuild Christchurch is among the most important tasks the Government will undertake this year and for the foreseeable future. We will all share in that burden and I believe all New Zealanders understand and support that commitment. My constituents in Hamilton certainly do. Cantabrians deserve that undertaking and we will not let them down. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Friday was the chance for New Zealanders to come together to grieve as a country at the national memorial service. When Prince William quoting his grandmother said that grief was the price we pay for love that sentiment was present not only among those in Christchurch but among the tens of thousands of people who were listening on the radio or watching on the television. I was proud to represent the people of Taupo but I left that service enormously proud to be a New Zealander because the people of Christchurch and also those in Taupo and across the rest of New Zealand have demonstrated with their actions their love as well as their grief. There are nearly 100 evacuees from Christchurch who have gone either temporarily or permanently to the Taupo electorate. 
The daily activities of fundraising for those who remain in Christchurch humble me. Whether it is a truckload of groceries walkathons coin trails at schools a swimathon in Cambridge auctions or adding a few dollars at the supermarket checkout every time one passes through those very actions support the people of Christchurch. The most recent initiative is one I am really enjoying through my electorate offices and that is the Shoe Boxes of Love. Every day I have care parcels turning up in my office. Some are labelled “6 to 8-year-old girl” and in the shoebox are some lollies some colouring pens some books and there might be some bubble bath—all sorts of bits and pieces that somebody has put a lot of thought and attention into collecting. When that box arrives in Christchurch the recipients will know that love has been sent in that box. Every person is contributing to the rebuilding of Christchurch. 
I do not think that anyone in this room could dispute the fact that 22 February changed our landscape physically financially and socially so I was quite staggered that the first speaker in the general debate from the Opposition did not even pay attention to the enormous challenge we have ahead of us as a country. I do not think helping to support and rebuild Christchurch is a boring matter unlike some of the members sitting opposite. It is important for us as a Government to make sure we get it right and it will be a priority for us this year and for years ahead. It is actually essential for all New Zealand. But while we do this it is important that we continue with our economic plan. We need to reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to foreign lenders. We need to reduce New Zealand’s levels of consumption and levels of debt and to make sure we look at our savings and investment. We need to make sure that our national savings are growing and that we are exporting across the world more of what we grow. 
The earthquake will unfortunately delay our return to surplus but it is also important that as a country we stay on top of the levels of debt we incur. We will need to borrow a little more in the short term to meet the Government’s share of the costs of the earthquake as we redirect some capital spending to Christchurch. Major infrastructure projects the Government has already committed to will not be put off. I have seen very directly the economic benefits these sorts of infrastructure projects provide in Taupo and we need more of those benefits. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said we also need to look carefully at our spending priorities so we can return to surplus and start repaying debt. While making those decisions though we will also protect the most vulnerable and improve public services. If it takes a village to raise a child then it takes a country to rebuild a city. This side of the House is focused on that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 On this side of the House we are very well aware of the Canterbury earthquake. We are extremely well aware of the impact it has had on individuals families communities and the whole of Christchurch city. We are extremely well aware of the impact it has on the New Zealand economy. It is offensive to have a member of the Government stand up and tell people on this side of the House that we do not understand the impact of the Canterbury earthquake. We know the struggles people in Canterbury are having every single day and we support them. 
But the problems in the New Zealand economy go back far further than the earthquake. The problems in the New Zealand economy stem from the economic mismanagement of Bill English’s 2½ years as Minister of Finance. That is the problem. This recession is National’s recession; this is the recession it has driven us into. New Zealand is going backwards under National. This recession lies at the feet of the National Government because it does not have a real economic plan. It looked as though Louise Upston was going to upstage Bill English and finally announce National’s economic plan but no she did not really go there. The best we have seen is asset sales. The best we have seen is a slash-and-burn Budget. 
I think there is one thing the House can come together on perhaps with the exception of Hilary Calvert. There is one thing we can come together on in terms of savings from the Budget and that is the end of the 2025 Taskforce. It can be done; I think we can come together across the House on this. However there is a bit of a problem for National in that plan in that the savings will get from that will probably not amount to much because Don Brash blew the budget in the first year. I think a whole lot of the money has gone. So unfortunately that will not be the answer to New Zealand’s economic woes either. This National Government does not have a plan. 
In question time today we saw just how out of touch this Government is with New Zealanders’ everyday struggles. Paula Bennett stood up in this House and said this Government is making tough decisions. I tell Paula Bennett that the people who are making the tough decisions in New Zealand are the families who have to decide whether they can take their children to the doctor or put healthy food on the table. That kind of decision is one that no family in New Zealand should have to face. But that is what is happening as the cost of living goes up as petrol prices go through the roof as rents go up and as the cost of power goes up. People are being faced with decisions that none of us would want to have to make. Some families have to spend 20 percent of their weekly food budget on a visit to the doctor as a person from the Kapiti coast wrote to tell me. That is unacceptable. 
On this side of the House we all know and New Zealanders know what a zero Budget looks like. It looks like cuts in areas of importance to New Zealand. Newspaper headlines like the one I have here: “Big Health Cuts On The Way” were for last year’s Budget let alone the cuts that will be in this year’s Budget. We know from the 1990s what a slash-and-burn Budget looks like in health: it looks like the increased cost of going to the doctor of prescriptions and of user charges. Those are the things that a National Government brought in last time there was a zero Budget. That is what we are looking out for. We know that despite the National Government’s spin that it will be spending more on health next year it will not be enough to make health spending stand still. It is a little like going to the supermarket and saying: “I spent more on my groceries this week but I didn’t get as many things in the basket.” Those costs have gone up and that is what is happening in health. The cost of actually delivering health care with things like an ageing population will mean that health cuts are on the way. 
Education cuts are on the way let alone the cuts to Working for Families and cuts to early childhood education. We need to see these things as an investment in our future. We need to invest in people in skills training and in innovation. Those are the things that Governments should be doing. They should be acting against the tide making sure that people have the skills to be able to grow our economy and to create jobs and opportunities for our children and our grandchildren. If we do not protect the assets that have been built up by past generations and use them for future generations what is the point of Government? This Government is taking a short-term view. 
Everybody in New Zealand knows that we have to be careful with the management of the economy but to slash-and-burn and to take money out of the pockets of people who need it and put it into the pockets of those who do not will not grow our economy and will not lead to the kind of future that our children and grandchildren will need to achieve their potential. Labour is focused on policies that will enhance the well-being of children and protect our assets not on slash-and-burn. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
Ka karuerue te papa 
He pie aue 
Ka huki te whenua 
Ka hopo ka taki kau 
The land heaves 
A desperate call is heard 
the land thrusts 
a cry of sorrow resounds 
across the Canterbury Plains 
It was exquisitely painful to be there. Last Friday I attended the national Christchurch memorial service at Hagley Park. Those words by Charisma Rangipunga were written at the front of the memorial programme. Hagley Park was looking at its best: beautiful majestic trees blue sky and warm sun overhead framing the tens of thousands of people attending the event. They were there to honour those who had lost loved ones those who were grievously injured and those whose homes or businesses had been destroyed and indeed to acknowledge the fact that New Zealand itself has been indelibly scarred by this tragic event. It was exquisitely painful to be there; the universal sense of loss was palpable. All present whether prince policeman Prime Minister fireman victim support worker urban search and rescue team member diplomat Christchurch resident or one of the many who came from outside Christchurch or indeed from beyond our shores were united in their grief. Prince William so eloquently quoted his grandmother: “Grief is the price we pay for love.” 
As the ceremony progressed it reflected the enormous amount of shared resolve courage and hope among those present and indeed the ceremony itself was uplifting when one realised the enormity of those emotions. Representatives from Buddhist Hindu Jewish Baha’i and Christian religions offered prayers on behalf of many faiths of the world. Hayley Westenra looked angelic and gave a haunting and ethereally beautiful rendition of “Amazing Grace”. I wager there was not one dry eye in the tens of thousands of those present. Dave Dobbyn in his normal inimitable style sang the anthemic “Loyal”. The message was clear: New Zealand is standing alongside Christchurch and is committed to its future. We gathered there to mark the worst of times and whilst there we observed New Zealand and the actions of New Zealanders at their finest. 
There is unlikely to be anyone untouched in some way by the Christchurch earthquake. New Zealanders—most of us—have friends and some of us have family in Christchurch. Fortunately most of us have not lost loved ones but many know people who have had their homes destroyed or who have lost property. I personally found out only 2 days ago that a colleague I had worked with in the Auckland hospital service when a house surgeon had just opened a practice in the CTV building and he was lost in this tragedy. 
At this stage as many speakers at the memorial service acknowledged I acknowledge the tragedy in Japan: an earthquake of 9 on the Richter scale that was almost a thousand times more fierce than the earthquake that did such devastation to Christchurch the subsequent tsunami and the radiation from damaged nuclear reactors that is complicating rescue efforts. I salute the stoicism and courage of the Japanese and acknowledge their grief and loss. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 “This is the rainy day that we have been saving for.” Those were the words of Bill English when he first became the Minister of Finance. He said that this was the rainy day that we were saving for. Well if it was raining when National became the Government it must be pouring down now. National is talking about breaking all of the election promises that they made to New Zealanders at the last election. They were not going to cut KiwiSaver; now KiwiSaver is on the chopping-block. They were not going to touch Working for Families but that is on the chopping-block. They were not going to sell assets but they are on the chopping-block. 
The slow-burning fire sale has started under the National Government. This is because of Bill English’s mismanagement of the economy and because Bill English and John Key do not have a plan. They do not have a plan; they have no idea what is going on for ordinary hard-working New Zealand families. Under National New Zealand has been going backwards. What did John Key say on Monday? John Key said that he lived in the real world. In John Key’s real world he got an extra $1000 a week in tax cuts. Some people struggle to earn that much money in a week but John Key receives that much money each week just in his tax cuts. That is the real world that John Key claims that he lives in. 
John Key and Bill English and the rest of the National Government are totally out of touch with ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living is going up and every day when they fill up their cars or go to the supermarket they are facing increased prices. What is John Key’s and Bill English’s prescription for that? They will increase prices further. They will privatise accident compensation so that New Zealanders will pay more for their accident compensation cover and get less. They will sell State assets. They will sell the energy companies so that New Zealanders will pay more for their electricity. Of course New Zealanders will pay more for their electricity if the energy companies are sold because any private investors in electricity companies will want to maximise their profits. 
The Government’s plan for getting New Zealand out of the raining and pouring that Bill English is talking about is to load more and more of the cost of living on to ordinary New Zealand working families because they do not have a plan and they do not know how to get New Zealand back on track. They do not know how to create jobs or lift wages. Their plan is to divide up and hock off whatever is left that the Government may hold. 
I want to talk about the cuts in accident compensation that the Government is talking about—in fact not just the cuts it is talking about but also the cuts it has already made. This morning Phil Goff and I accepted a petition on the forecourt of Parliament from the National Foundation for the Deaf. Under this National Government because of the cuts that have been made New Zealanders who have faced hearing loss in the workplace are no longer covered by accident compensation. Those New Zealanders cannot hear a conversation. If they were sitting up in the gallery here they would not be able to hear what I am saying yet the National Government has cut the support that was previously available to them through accident compensation. That is an absolute disgrace. 
If we say that we judge our society by how we treat the most vulnerable this Government’s track record is an absolute indictment upon its Ministers because they are not doing well by that measure. They are cutting funding for children. They are cutting funding for the youngest children in early childhood education whose parents are struggling to make ends meet and now they are having to pay extra for the early childhood education that their children receive. They are cutting funding for people who need home help. Elderly New Zealanders who need home help are having that help cut. 
Paul Quinn 
: What about the 9000 kohanga reo and 16000 Playcentres? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am not going to listen to anything that Paul Quinn says because he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He seems to think that if he just says it with a bit more volume it might make some sense. 
The youngest children are facing funding cuts. Elderly New Zealanders are facing funding cuts. Hard-working Kiwi families on the basic wage are facing cost of living increases on a day by day basis yet this Government has no plan for them because Government members are not in it for them. Government members are in it for themselves and their mates. They do not really care about the New Zealanders on Struggle Street because in John Key’s real world where one gets a tax cut of $1000 a week everything is going along nicely. In John Key’s world where he gets a brand new BMW to cruise around in every 3 years things are going along nicely. But things are not going along nicely for the New Zealanders who are working hard to make ends meet. They are struggling and this Government has no plan to help them out. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I can tell those who are tuned into the parliamentary radio and TV stations that that speaker was Chris Hipkins. We can tell that he has spent only 2½ years or a bit less in the House because he did not recall the lack of direction and the stymied nature of the Labour Government in the last 3 years it was in power. Effectively Labour was in office when we had the best economic times in the last 30 years if not the last 70 years and it completely wasted that opportunity. At the election in 2008 New Zealanders shifted their confidence in behind a John Key - led Government and there we are today. 
I would like to start off by dwelling a fraction on the solidarity shown at the Hagley Park event in Christchurch. It was a privilege to be there and there were some enduring moments that were burnt into the minds and hearts of all present. We have to labour the thought a little because it was a memorable event for those who were there. What really took my notice was the spontaneous applause for the urban search and rescue teams—it just burst out. It happened on and on throughout the event and one had to try to capture that moment. There is a population down there who are crying out for support from the whole nation and the Government is attuned to that. 
I offer my congratulations to Gerry Brownlee David Carter and the rest of Cabinet as they wrestle with some incredible challenges. I had not been down to Christchurch even after the 4 September earthquake. I went down after the 18 March event and I visited my wife’s brothers who have been quite affected by the earthquake. When we drove back down Ferry Road up Fitzgerald Avenue down Bealey Avenue and out through Papanui Road we started to grasp without seeing the real damage inside the central business district the magnitude of the challenge facing the people of Christchurch the nation of New Zealand and this Government. 
I want to dwell on the bright parts of the economy at the moment and a side of the economy that has been our backbone for many many years—the primary sector. I think it is opportune for us all to give credit to the primary sector because it produces and creates jobs. There is a bright future for this nation so long as we have a robust and vibrant primary sector. The dairy industry is in good shape. It is working well and we need to applaud it. The sheep and beef sector is in good shape. It is in the best shape it has been in for 20 years. When we look at the cost of an earthquake and the effect of the downturn in the domestic product of this country of 15 percent we see it is understandable why we have to show some consideration and care around the decisions that will be made in the forthcoming Budget. The aquaculture industry is poised to make a major contribution to this nation’s economy and this Government shall unleash the potential by revenue and by opportunities of employment. Then we have only to reflect back a bit further to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
The Government is getting itself in order. It has the commissioners working overtime to ensure that we break through the impasse of debate and discussion and no activity. The things I have mentioned are part of the very plan that this Government will unleash and it contrasts very clearly with that plan of the Labour members who in the very best of times continued talking got nothing done and stymied the very opportunities to grow an economy and build capacity. The people of New Zealand clearly have confidence in this Government and they will return it in 2011. Thank you very much. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 March. 
Clause 8 Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes ( 
continued 
)  
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I distinctly recall that when I was last speaking on this clause everybody was on the edge of their seats waiting to hear what I was going to say further on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I have been so looking forward to this bill coming back to the Committee of the whole House today. 
I was talking about GST. I was saying that under this legislation in the transfer of this land no GST will apply unlike— 
Chris Tremain 
: That’s right. Now I remember. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The senior whip remembers distinctly. He has thought about it for the last 2 weeks as this bill has gone from one members’ day to the next members’ day. Under this bill GST is not applied unlike the situation for everybody else in New Zealand who has to pay GST at the inflated rate of 15 percent. The rate of GST was increased by the National Government which went against its election promise in 2008. It promised not to put up GST. John Key specifically said that yet National put up GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent and broke that promise. The promise has been broken again. We are seeing the same things emerge in regard to Working for Families and the various excuses that have come out as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. 
I am referring directly in this speech to clause 8(b) regarding the goods and services tax which does not apply in this case to Parana Park. Would it not be great if the goods and services tax did not apply not only to Parana Park but also to fresh fruit and vegetables? If the goods and services tax did not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables then they would be much cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders. Ordinary New Zealanders would not have to pay that tax and fruit and vegetables would be cheaper. We know from scientific studies that have been done throughout the country that the uptake and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables would increase if they were cheaper. 
The bill in some ways is leading the way in terms of the goods and services tax not being levied. I would like to think that Parana Park and fresh fruit and vegetables go together in not having GST apply to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think we need to come back to clause 8. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I come to a second point that we raised in the consideration of a couple of the other clauses in the bill. Clause 3 sets out the area known as Parana Park. The title of clause 8 states: “Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes”. If we are vesting land there we want to know pretty exactly what land we are in fact vesting. It is not clear and we brought up the matter in some of the earlier comments on the bill. I would appreciate clarification from David Bennett who brought the bill into Parliament. He has our support but I think he has to clarify the issue. Perhaps he has had the chance in the last 2 weeks—if he was in his electorate; I am sure he was—to check out where that 0.4 of a hectare which is nearly 1 acre has disappeared to. Perhaps he could clarify that in a response to the Committee and to all of us here who are supporting the bill. 
None of us has anything against the bill. We think it is visionary. We think George Parr was visionary. He was a man of vision and a person who had a plan for this area of the country. He was a man quite unlike the Prime Minister for example who does not seem to have a plan or vision for the country. But Mr George Parr had a vision. 
Perhaps the member could give us some indication as to where 0.4 of a hectare of Parana Park has disappeared to. It may have been converted into a dairy farm. I doubt it; I do not think 0.4 of a hectare would necessarily be good for a dairy farm in the middle of central Hamilton. I suspect that it includes the house that is currently occupied by the Hamilton City Council grounds staff. They occupy one corner of the park and use it to administer the park. Perhaps that is the answer but I do not wish to put words into the Min— 
David Bennett 
: Yeah. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —into the member’s mouth. I nearly said “Minister” then. I would like to hear—and I am sure people on our side of the Chamber also want to hear—what has happened to the nearly 1 acre of land. 
I imagine 1 acre of land in the middle of Hamilton is very valuable. Let us face it: people could put apartments on it or subdivide it into eight or nine blocks and sell it all off. We would not want to see any inappropriate use of that land. We would like to see it being used in the way George Parr intended it to be used: for the children for historic value for recreation and for its reserve status in the middle of one of New Zealand’s urban centres. We would like to see it being used appropriately. I am sure the Tainui Maori Trust Board which spoke on the bill also has some concerns because that 0.4 of a hectare is close to the river. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 For a moment there I thought the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill might be rising to his feet but thank you Chairman Roy for giving me the call on clause 8 of the bill.  
Clause 8 is a very important clause. It was obviously an important factor that the council decided to include the clause for the sake of avoidance of doubt and for the sake of certainty I suppose. In fact all three subclauses of clause 8 refer to taxes and to duties that have come under some scrutiny and attention from the Government. There have been changes—or at least there have been announcements of intended changes—to each one of the subclauses so it was probably quite a good idea from the Hamilton City Council to include clause 8 in the bill in order to give it some certainty. 
I will start with clause 8(a). Clause 8 states: “To avoid doubt the vesting of the land by this Act is not—(a) a dutiable gift for the purposes of the Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968:”. People will know that as gift duty—the tax one pays if one gifts a large asset or a large amount of money which is I think in excess of $27000 in one financial year. Gift duty has to be paid on that asset. The Chair is shaking his head. I do not know; maybe I am not quite accurate but I know I am in the zone. I am getting to the general guts of what gift duty is about. Gift duty is all about ensuring that people who have considerable assets cannot hide or dispose of those assets in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. 
The Government has announced its intention to abolish gift duty. That will allow the Government’s mates who have massive assets—whether they be in land shares or any other form an asset can take even cash—to perhaps be able to gift those assets to a family member or to someone close to them which would assist them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That seems just outrageous when the Government has increased taxes on middle and low income hard-working wage earners and salary earners who have to pay more taxes through GST. GST is also referred to in clause 8 and I will come back to that later on. People are paying more taxes and the Government has announced that it will allow people of significant wealth—people who can afford to pay their fair share and who can contribute to the community society and country to make sure we can get ourselves out of debt grow the economy and provide the services the Government ought to be providing to New Zealanders—to be able to hide their assets and avoid paying their fair share of tax. I do not think that is on. 
But it seems appropriate given that the bill is about vesting Parana Park—it is not a gift—that the Hamilton City Council sought to have that clarified in the bill. If the bill had taken a little bit longer to pass through the House—I know it has already taken a little longer than the member in charge of the bill thought it might—we might have found that the clause was obsolete and unnecessary because the Government is going ahead and abolishing gift duty for everybody. That will create that unfairness whereby people who can afford to pay tax will be able to avoid doing so while the Government increases tax on those people who can least afford it. 
That takes me to clause 8(b) which is about GST. GST will not be applied to the vesting of that land. That was a very good move a wise move on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. It would have paid a whole lot more GST because the Government increased GST. 
Although the Government is making more loopholes for wealthy people to hide their assets and reduce the tax they have to pay it has increased tax on ordinary hard-working Kiwi families who are spending most of what they earn at the supermarket. Those families who are simply getting by from one week to the next or from one fortnight to the next have to pay 15 percent GST but the Hamilton City Council will not have to pay 15 percent GST under clause 8(b). Hard-working ordinary Kiwi families who do not have massive assets who do not have large tracts of land from which to generate income who are living from one week to the next and who are trying just to put food on the table for their families and their children have to pay the full 15 percent GST that is excluded in clause 8(b). 
Clause 8(c) refers to the “sale disposition distribution or transfer of property or liability for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007.” That was another area where the Hamilton City Council obviously decided in advance that it would have to make sure it had some certainty and clarity on income tax because the Government had made a number of announcements on income tax. The National Government was all at sea at first. First it cut taxes as soon as it came into Government then it realised that was not affordable so it repealed them. Then it introduced some more tax cuts. It turns out that those were not affordable either. Now the Government’s coffers are in such a bad way that it has to borrow millions and millions of dollars every week to pay for income tax cuts that it provided to people who were on the very highest incomes. 
If there was income being derived from this land the Hamilton City Council would have received quite a significant tax cut because the income derived from this land would be quite significant. But if the Hamilton City Council were just a salary or wage earner who was earning at the lower end it would have received very very little. In fact it would have been very important even doubly important that clause 8(b) was included. It would have wanted to avoid paying GST because the increase in GST for salary and wage earners was much larger than what they received in the pitiful tax cuts they got if they were at the lower end of the income spectrum. 
I think clause 8 is a massively important clause in this bill because this bill is all about giving certainty to the nature of this land and to its status as a public asset. We have already discussed how the Hamilton City Council is doing such a wonderful job of ensuring that this land remains a public asset how it would be unreasonable to expect the Hamilton City Council to pay gift duty GST or income tax on what is simply a change or a re-establishment of the description of this land rather than a sale or change in title of this land. Those provisions are sensible and important for the Hamilton City Council. 
But would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have those provisions apply to them? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have to pay National’s 15 percent GST? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to get the kinds of tax cuts that people at the top have been able to get which are reflected in the income tax cut that the Hamilton City Council gets from this clause? 
Clause 8 is very sensible. It is important that there is certainty for the Hamilton City Council. It is important that this land is retained as a public asset. It is great to see that the Hamilton City Council is not hocking it off to pay its bills. It obviously has much better fiscal management than this Government has. It is able to retain its assets; it does not have to sell them off to foreigners in the way that this Government is doing. 
From that point of view Labour is very very comfortable with clause 8 and we thoroughly support it. We think having those clarifications in this bill is very important for the Hamilton City Council. We hope this bill gives the Hamilton City Council the certainty it requires to retain Parana Park in its current state. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of clause 8 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which has been brought in in the name of the Hamilton City Council— 
Paul Quinn 
: What about those 16000 Playcentre kids being funded; 9000 kohanga reo kids? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I ask whether the member opposite is in the right debate as I am not sure. I can talk about early childhood education if the member would like me to but I was going to try to stick to the clause in this instance. It would be nice to have the opportunity to talk about passenger train services from Hamilton to Auckland as well but I will leave that aside for now. I was just responding to the interjection Mr Chair. 
Coming back to clause 8 which deals with the vesting of land I am particularly pleased to stand in support of this part of the bill because I think that in the time since the Hamilton City Council drafted this legislation the clause has become even more pertinent. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out it ensures that the Hamilton City Council does not incur any further cost than is necessary in having Parliament take over and vest this land once this bill passes. We would not want the council to incur any further cost because since it drafted this bill the council has found that its costs have been a real problem. It was reported just last week that because of the recession—which is National’s recession now because it has double-dipped and that must be because of what the National Government has not done—the council now faces a very precarious financial situation. It was reported just last week in the  
Waikato Times 
 that as a result of there being no growth in the economy in Hamilton the council is facing— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not true. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The member in the chair David Bennett who is in charge of this bill said that that is not true but it was there in black and white that the council has lost $4 million in the development contributions that it had budgeted for in this financial year and that is for Hamilton City Council alone. That tells us that economic growth has dropped so badly in Hamilton that there is just no development going on there. Although the Hamilton City Council had budgeted knowing about the global recession that was taking place it put forward a budget of X amount of dollars which has fallen short by $4 million just on the development contribution alone. The council has also identified that as a result of there being no extra money available for families to spend in Hamilton what had been budgeted for to be brought in through gate sales for the Waikato Stadium has fallen by $780000 in just 1 financial year. That tells us a story about ordinary families not being able to spare $20 or $25 to go to the rugby match because things are so stretched on that front. It is really important because of those circumstances that this Parliament supports this part of the bill where we make sure or the drafters of the bill have made sure that no further cost is incurred. 
I must congratulate those who drafted the bill as they have done a very good job on it—I tell Mr Bennett that I am referring to the officials but if the member has actually put pen to paper and drafted the bill himself then I would apologise withdraw that comment and would want to congratulate the member; however I suspect that it was the officials—because little in this bill has become controversial. I think that is the result of good drafting. 
However we need to support this clause because of the terrible financial situation that the Hamilton City Council has found itself in due to the lack of economic growth in our region and our city. I think that it has to come back to an absolute lack of a plan from the current Government that we have families who are really stretched and who cannot afford to go to rugby matches and the funding has fallen. Therefore it is so important that we make sure there are no additional and unnecessary costs for the Hamilton City Council to try to cover off in its budget this year. We know that if gift duties were to be paid on this land and if GST were to be paid it would come back on the ratepayer. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Bill. Those of us in the Chamber 2 weeks ago will remember that we had a lengthy debate about this bill because we felt that it was very important to the people of Waikato. It was also a great example to other territorial authorities around the country of honouring the intent of land gifted to councils. I come from Rotorua. I acknowledge the good people of Ngati Whakaue who have endowed amazing stretches of land to our city to be used as recreational reserves for the benefit of the many and not just the few. This bill is a reflection of the way city councils and regional authorities around the country are taking seriously their responsibility for managing assets under their purview. 
Clause 8 is a short clause but I think it is very significant. I too congratulate the drafters because clause 8 makes very clear what the vesting of the land is not. It covers off the dutiable gift so there will be no incurring of gift duties on the transfer of this land. Clause 8(b) states: “a supply of goods and services for the purposes of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985:” and I think that makes things very clear for the Hamilton City Council to go ahead. I congratulate them. 
I hope that the member in the chair David Bennett who is supporting the bill has done his homework. We were very concerned about the footprint of the land and the missing 0.4 hectares. The good member in the chair has had time over the last 2 weeks to go away and find out what happened to that land and whether the missing land was due to an anomaly between the historical archive reserves of the Hamilton City Council and land registered on the land base of that region of the Waikato. We do want to find out about that. It may have been sold off. If it was sold off it has been lost to the people of Waikato. 
This legislation shows that regional authorities around the country do have a plan as opposed to the Government at the moment which clearly does not have a plan. When we have an asset like Parana Park which is a beautiful park and is certainly not for sale we need a plan. But we in the Opposition are very concerned about what assets are for sale as the Government tries to get on top of the double-dip National-constructed recession. Before the Canterbury earthquake hit we were facing a double-dip recession. This Government needs to make sure that it is not looking at selling assets as a way of getting out of this constructed double-dip recession which is part of National’s mismanagement of the economy. The Hamilton City Council on the other hand is making sure it is looking after assets. I think it is great that there will be no incurring of GST as clause 8(b) states. 
I congratulate Waikato and the Hamilton City Council. This is something for ordinary Kiwis who cannot afford to travel now because of the costs of travel the costs of petrol and cost of living pressures. Those costs mean they cannot get out of the Waikato. Families there are rather trapped but they can go to Parana Park. They can go to Parana Park and play in the paddling pool. That is wonderful for the many and not just for those at the top who got a tax cut and who can afford to get on an Air New Zealand flight from Waikato and get around the country. This will be a wonderful asset for families facing incredible cost of living pressures. They can get out on Saturday and look at and enjoy this recreational reserve. I think these provisions called “Miscellaneous provisions” are incredibly important for stipulating in law what this vesting of land is not all about for the good people of Waikato. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 8 agreed to. 
Clause 9 Powers of Registrar-General of Land 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I hoped that Mr Macindoe would make a full contribution on a bill that is important to our city The Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill but perhaps he will have something to say on clause 9. I certainly hope he does have something to contribute in that regard. Clause 9 essentially gives powers to the Registrar-General of Land to make the computer documentation of the transfer of Parana Park into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. I would like to be able to say “Parana Park of X number of hectares” but of course that is in some dispute. I really want to stand up and support this clause because I think it makes sense and it is very sensible. However there is the issue of the outstanding problem of not knowing exactly how much land will be registered by the Registrar-General of Land. I do not know whether people following this debate can remember 2 weeks ago but in changing the drafting of one of the earlier clauses defining this piece of land my colleague David Shearer did a bit of maths and worked out that the new descriptor of how large the piece of land was did not match the previous description of the land which went through a number of blocks of land that made up Parana Park. What we discovered— 
Tim Macindoe 
: He took 10 minutes to tell us all about it again today. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I say to Mr Macindoe that that would be because we still have not had an answer from the member sponsoring this bill David Bennett. He has had 2 weeks now—he has had 2 weeks. I know that David Shearer asked the question about whether David Bennett had been in the electorate during that period of time and I can say that I know that David Bennett has been in the electorate during that course of time. It would have been great if he had got out because we had great sunny weather for the whole of those 2 weeks. He could have got out with his tape. He could have gone around and measured the circumference of Parana Park and done some real work for this bill. I do not know—maybe he did put pen to paper and draft this bill but my guess is that he probably did not. 
Grant Robertson 
: I’m thinking not. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Possibly he did not but it would have been good to see him do some background research over the course of those 2 weeks to find out what the area of that land is. Because we have a dispute between the two definitions. It is of concern when we look at clause 9 because now clause 9 is giving the power to the Registrar-General of Land to transfer this land on to the computer database yet there is still some uncertainty about how large that piece of land is and what the definition should be about describing that piece of land. 
On clause 8 which we have just finished debating I must say that we were all in support of it because it did not put unnecessary costs on the Hamilton City Council. As I described in my previous contribution it is a city council—and I am sure it is not alone in this—that is struggling because of a lack of economic growth in the area to contain the cost to ratepayers. Let us face it: any cost that is put on the Hamilton City Council by the passing of this bill will be passed on to its ratepayers. Those ratepayers have already faced an increase in GST on everything they purchase they are facing increasing petrol costs and some of them are facing increased early childhood education fees as well. So we do not want to pass on any more costs by passing this bill to the Hamilton City Council which would therefore be picked up by Hamilton ratepayers. 
It concerns me that the select committee made a change to clause 9. We previously looked at a bill that was drafted to state: “The Registrar must without fee (a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land …”. That has now changed. The bill states: “The Registrar-General must on application”. That means the Hamilton City Council—and I am assuming it will be the Hamilton City Council—will be responsible for paying a fee for the computer transfer to occur. I think that is really unfortunate. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I get on to my contribution on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill I would like to clarify some statements I made during the debate on clause 8. I have been advised by a learned colleague of mine in the Chamber that gift duties within the family apply to those gifts over $27000 a year which is a number I referred to. I believe that outside of the family if there is no family link they apply to gifts over $10000 in 1 year. I would not want to be accused of misleading the Committee so I wanted to clarify that at the outset. 
I will go back to clause 9 which I am sure the Chair is concerned that I do. Clause 9 is about the Registrar-General of Land who is authorised and directed to make entries in the registers under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Section 4 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 states: “There must be a Registrar-General of Land appointed under the State Sector Act 1988.” and that person must be a barrister and solicitor of the High Court which is important. This is a particularly important part that I would like to discuss. The Registrar-General of Land in exercising or performing the powers and duties of the registrar must have regard to the following objectives: ensuring an efficient and effective system for registering dealings in land; managing the risk of fraud or improper dealings; ensuring public confidence in the land title system; and ensuring the integrity of the register and the right to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. 
There is some concern—and my colleague Sue Moroney raised some of these points—that if we have not got a proper description of the land and it appears that there may be 0.4 of a hectare missing from the description of the land in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 then that potentially undermines public confidence in the land title system and it may in fact undermine the maintenance of the integrity of the register. We may find the need to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. I think we have approached with some jocularity the question of this missing parcel of land. But in terms of the duties of the Registrar-General of Land I think it is very important that we do get to the bottom of this. We need some clarity. We would not want to put a public servant in a difficult position or in a more difficult position than he or she already finds themselves under the current Government. I think that it is important that the member in charge of this bill does give us some clarity on that anomaly between the description of the land before it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the description of the land after it came back from that committee so that the Registrar-General of Land is able to properly fulfil his or her duties as set out in the Land Transfer Act 1952. 
I think there is a problem in ensuring confidence in land title systems. I think it is important that to retain public confidence in the land title system we make sure that when public land is transferred from one form of ownership to another or is vested in the way it is in this bill that the land is properly accounted for and is properly valued. We have a problem with a piece of legislation that is going through the House at the moment making amendments to the Crown Pastoral Land Act and that is in reference to pastoral leases in the South Island High Country where by devaluing the rent that the Crown charges on that land the National Government is devaluing that Crown-owned land—in fact devaluing a State asset. Given that for that particular State asset we do have a process by which it is privatised we need to ensure public confidence in the land title system and we need to make sure that the public can have confidence that the Crown is actually valuing that land appropriately so that when that land is privatised the Crown can realise the true value of that land. That land belongs to 4.4 million New Zealanders. 
Those 4.4 million New Zealanders ought to receive the true benefit of the value of that land. But what we have seen for a long time now—and I am prepared to accept that the situation at the moment is bad enough as it is but this Government is making it even worse—is a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few. I believe that something like 28 landowners who have received land under tenure review have sold on small portions of that land for massive profits. Those profits have gone to those landowners not to the Crown. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can we get back to clause 9? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The reason why I bring that up Mr Chairperson is that the powers of the Registrar-General of Land referred to in clause 9 require the Registrar-General to ensure that there is public confidence in the land title system and to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the register. This particular legislation I think is excellent. 
The member in the chair David Bennett is nodding his head and looking rather pleased with himself. He has got a bit of a Cheshire cat grin on his face but let us be honest—this is not a Government bill. This is a local bill. If this were a Government bill this would be called the “Parana Park (Sell it Off to the Lowest Bidder so They Can Make the Money Out of It) Bill”. That is what would be going on. Thank goodness the Hamilton City Council has brought this bill to the House! The member is doing a fine job of representing his local electorate and bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. This legislation ensures that a public asset remains in public hands. I think it does an excellent job of ensuring public confidence in the lands title system and it ensures the maintenance of the integrity of the register. I have no doubt that there will be no claim to compensation as long as we figure out where that 0.4 of a hectare has got to. It is very important that we find that. 
Clause 9(2) states that the Registrar-General must: “(a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land; and (b) enter on the computer register the words Recreation reserve subject to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”. Before this bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee it had the words “without fee” but now “without fee” has been struck out and it states “on application”. In fact even in the commentary on the bill the select committee has said that to align the bill with the Land Transfer Act 1952 it believes that the issuing of computer registers must be undertaken on an application basis and accompanied by the relevant fee. This will of course mean an increase in costs for the Hamilton City Council and we all know what happens when councils have to increase their costs. They pass those costs on to the ratepayers. Who are the ratepayers? They are ordinary hard-working Kiwis who already have to face massive increases to their costs of living whether they are at the supermarket at the doctors at after-hours care or at the petrol pump. In all manners of life we are seeing massive increases in the cost of living under this National Government and this will be just one more thing that will push rates up even further. 
I know that ratepayers all across the country have to scrounge around looking in their bank accounts to see whether they have the money to pay those rates bills every quarter. The change that the select committee has made to clause 9 will increase costs for the Hamilton City Council and those costs will be passed on to ratepayers in Hamilton City. I bet that they will be coming to their local member and asking: “Why did you allow an increase in costs to the Hamilton City Council and why did you allow that cost to be passed on to us your constituents and the ratepayers in your electorate? Our costs are high enough already.” That is what they will be saying to David Bennett. Ratepayers will be saying to him that when they go to the supermarket their costs have increased when they go to the petrol pump their costs have increased and when they visit the doctor their costs have increased. Now because of this bill they have one more cost to deal with. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I was hopeful that the member in the chair David Bennett would rise to speak. This is becoming quite a serious matter. This is the second week that we have been debating this bill and we are very anxious to get it through its stages as I know the good people of Hamilton are. 
I see some clarification is being given to the member in the chair and I think this will be helpful but I am concerned that under clause 9(2)(b) there will be an entry on the computer register of the recreational reserve subject to the passing of this bill after its third reading. We have a dispute—it is not a bitter dispute; it is an anomaly—with the footprint size of the Parana Park reserve. There is 0.4 hectares missing. That is worrying if we are to finesse the bill this evening. I can see the member in the chair now has clarification. We cannot have this registered as a recreational reserve by the Hamilton City Council as is able to happen under clause 9(2)(b) if we do not know the actual size of the footprint of this park. We are not prepared to go further with this bill until that is clarified in the Committee. 
This matter is becoming quite serious. We are quite prepared to give a call to the member in the chair. I thought he would sort this out—[ 
Interruption 
] He has had 2 weeks. Labour members were accused of filibustering last time we debated this bill. We were concerned that the actual size of this park is incorrect. As lawmakers we cannot deal seriously with legislation before us without it being seen as a bit of a mockery if we are talking about the wrong size of the park. 
This park is being gifted to the people of Hamilton and we in Labour say that we will protect the assets built up by past generations so that Kiwis can own their own future. This is all part of an asset that belongs to Kiwis; it belongs to all New Zealanders. I have been to Parana Park with my children and I will go back there. But this recreational reserve cannot be registered until we know what we are registering. We know it is Parana Park but for goodness’ sake around the edges there is 0.4 hectares missing. Mr Chairperson Roy you are a farmer and you know what 0.4 hectares is; I am not very sure myself. It may seem inconsequential and trivial but it is not inconsequential and trivial to lawmakers to make sure that we are talking about the right thing. 
I can see that the member sponsoring the bill on behalf of Hamilton City Council now has some clarification from the survey maps. I am sure the Registrar-General of Land who is authorised and directed under this very provision in clause 9 will want to make sure that this issue never comes back to the Committee. We do not want it to come back to the Committee in the future. We do not want to debate it again as a local bill because we need to correct the record. It is as simple as that. 
We have got to a bit of a breakdown here. We want to make sure before we support this bill—because it is a wonderful bill for Hamilton—that we are protecting the assets that George Parr donated. Labour believes they ought to be protected and never hocked off. We will not allow that. We want the children of future generations to enjoy Parana Park in its fullness. 
We seek clarification on that clause. I do not think we can proceed to debate on clause 10 in the interests of trying to get through this Committee stage until we have clarification. I do not think I take it so seriously as to want to recall the Speaker. It is not a breakdown but we need some clarification. We are simply entreating the member in the chair who is getting his head around the previous land records with the Registrar-General of Land—perhaps we could call the Registrar-General of Land and not the Speaker to the Chair. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Although we have treated with jocularity this whole issue of where the 0.4 of a hectare disappeared to there have been such incidences. There was a very recent incident up north where a faulty survey was done on a parcel of land—on land that was meant to be a reserve—similar to Parana Park. Surveyors did not locate the correct peg and as a result quite a bit of land was shaved off the reserve. Since then houses have been built on that land so where a peg should have indicated a boundary of this reserve up north at Otito Bay in Matapouri in Northland there is now someone’s lounge sitting right where that survey peg should be. 
We make jocular remarks about this issue but that is a case where land just as with Parana Park has been lost for good. I suspect that was also what happened at Parana Park—that there had been some sort of surveying error and as a result the boundary changed. Some of the land that George Parr gifted in its totality back in the 1920s was shaved off and quite possibly although I do not know the area myself someone else’s lounge is sitting where a survey peg should be and those people are watching TV right where the boundary is. 
That is quite serious because the incident up north has involved millions of dollars the case has gone to the High Court and it is being appealed. There are issues with the land that was inadvertently taken. There has been quite a legal and bureaucratic process to get the whole issue sorted out. It still has not been sorted out and we will probably see people at the Court of Appeal before the year is out trying to sort out this whole issue. It is a shame and we would hate this to happen to Parana Park as well. 
The point is that shonky surveys happen. They then get registered under the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. Those people are not infallible; they do make mistakes. Unfortunately a loss of land is the result. As I have said it appears that that was the case with Parana Park. As has been said George Parr decided back in the 1920s to gift this land in its totality. I must say that Putikitiki is its real name; we must get that in. Putikitiki was gifted but unfortunately not all of it has been enjoyed by the good people of Hamilton at this stage. 
That was my short contribution but I think it is a serious issue. We do not want to see other parcels of land accidentally having bits cut off particularly in this case where there is a reserve and people are not able to enjoy it to its fullest extent. Kia ora. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call to resolve some of the issues that have vexed the Committee over the last few days in regard to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. But first of all I thank everyone for their great interest in Parana Park Hamilton. I take great offence to all those comments about Hamilton not being a growing city and I reiterate the strength of our city and the beautiful place that Parana Park is. I challenge all parliamentarians to go and be part of Parana Park at some point. 
I think Kelvin Davis explained very well both the history of what we are dealing with and the issue that was raised by David Shearer. He hit the nail on the head in his explanation of what could have happened. Essentially in preparing this bill we sought advice from the Hamilton City Council about what the correct title would be. The council sent an email describing in three bullet points the total quantum that Mr Shearer so diligently worked out as he was the one spending most of the time in this Chamber 2 weeks ago looking at the information. 
However that description is an old description based on the original title and the legislation has been amended as members will see in clause 3 in the inserted text to reflect the computer-generated title which is the most accurate title that is available and the title that readers would see generated if they went into the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Effectively there is a change in land area under that entry and it was wrongly described in the first instance through the original certificate of title. The more modern title which is computer-generated in the register reflects what is now in the bill. So the bill represents what we have as the best record for that title. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank the member for his explanation but I wonder whether he could table the documentation that supports that information so that other members of Parliament may have access to it. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table first of all the email from Alex Kay Leeanne O’Brien and Kemble Pudney from the Hamilton City Council regarding the definition and also the entry in the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952 which shows both the computer-generated version and the older version. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I guess I will just wrap up—well maybe not wrap up—the debate; there might be more calls to come. Who knows? But I thank the member who has drafted—the member responsible for this bill. I cannot get that phrase right. The member responsible for this bill—I think I probably have difficulty using “responsible” and “the member” in one sentence. Look I am trying to describe why I have been constantly tripping over referring to David Bennett as the member responsible for the bill but of course he is responsible and I will try to make sure I get that right from here on. I thank him for that explanation because I think it is really important that we get it right. 
I will be interested in looking at the documents that have been tabled because I want to make sure that we have not somehow lost some land in cyberspace somewhere in the process of the land going from having a paper description to having a computer-generated description. I want to make sure that that has not occurred. But I guess the member is saying that these days we perhaps have more accurate techniques of making sure we get the land area correct. 
It is important to have had clause 9 clarified. It is very timely because as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out clause 9(2)(a) gives the power to the Registrar-General of Land once this bill has become an Act to “issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land;”. We on this side of the Chamber wanted to be assured that the description of the land was accurate before that took place so I thank the member for taking time to brief the Committee. We could see that Mr Bennett was making very good use of information from the officials to make sure that he was correctly briefed during the debate to avoid giving us a guess or just having a go at answering our queries. He actually collected the information before him and I think that it is fantastic that he could do that in a very timely— 
Grant Robertson 
: Responsible. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —and responsible manner. We on this side of the Chamber can now fully support—well I can certainly speak on behalf of Labour members but not the entire side of the Chamber—the clause and say that we are now satisfied. We can proceed to vote in favour of clause 9 knowing that we are not telling the Registrar-General—he or she; I am not sure whether it is a male or a female at the moment—through legislation to create a new computer register for this piece of land and not undermining the integrity of the register by having the wrong description for that piece of land. David Shearer who is just joining the debate again for this evening will be really pleased to know that. He first picked up the discrepancy in the previous clause on this issue and I know that he has been deeply concerned about it because he has raised it with me constantly over the past 2 weeks. He has said: “Sue where is that land? Make sure that we find it!”. I am very pleased to be able to report to David Shearer—and I am sure he has been following the debate closely anyway—that we have now been assured of that and that we can go ahead and vote for this clause. It will be on the basis however that the drafting error—the Act is called the “Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”—is corrected before we come to the third reading which I know we are all looking forward to. We want to make sure that the date of 2011 is inserted in clause 9 and other clauses that by a pure drafting mistake refer to 2010. 
Without further ado I am happy to say that Labour can now support clause 9. Our questions have been answered and we look forward to the rest of the debate on this very important bill. 
Clause 9 agreed to. 
Clause 10 Repeal of Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Well this is it. It looks as if we will be wrapping up the Committee stage of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I could not let clause 10 go without coming back to the main purpose which is the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I guess this clause really comes back to the main issue.  
In repealing that Act it is quite sad really that it will now be the last legislative record of the link between Parana Park and George Parr. I understand—I understand entirely—that that Act needs to be repealed so that this more modernised and flexible bill can become law in its place. It will give Hamilton City Council the certainty it needs in moving forward and managing this piece of land. I think that is very important and I do not want to take away from that at all.  
But I reflect on the fact that sometimes when we repeal Acts of Parliament we pose the problem of taking away part of the history of what has gone before—in particular the gifting of this piece of land. I think that in the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 which is being repealed by clause 10 of this bill there was reference to the last will and testament of George Parr. An earlier clause actually removes from this legislation the requirement that the land be subject to his last will and testament. I can understand the reasons for that but it with some sadness I think that we remove the Parr family name for ever from legislation in relation to this piece of land.  
Of course that does not mean that the Parr name will be removed for ever; nor is it only in the information about Parana Park. I am sure that in the Hamilton City Council library the entire story of Parana Park and its history will remain. I know that the Parliamentary Library now has quite a lot of information on the history of Parana Park and its gifting and in particular on George Parr and what he brought to the city of Hamilton. So I know that the history will not be lost in writing but certainly that link between George Parr and this piece of land will no longer exist in a legislative sense.  
I feel that that is a little bit sad because George Parr as we know was a man of great vision. He had the vision and the kindness to set aside this land for the children of our city. It was a great thing that George Parr did. By gifting this land to the city he has created a place Parana Park where many thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people over the course of time have gathered precious family memories because of his generosity. 
If that land had stayed in private hands that would have never taken place. All of those memories that members of Parliament themselves have been able to offer in this debate which have been memories precious to their own families would never have been created on that land right beside the Waikato River if it was still in private hands. I would like Government members to reflect on how important public access to those pieces of land is. They make a difference to our families and they make a difference to our history. George Parr was a person who understood that. He privately owned that land. It was land that had been confiscated but I am not even sure whether he was aware of that history because he was not the first owner of that land post the confiscation from Tainui. So he may not have realised that what he was doing was returning to the people land that had come from the people. It is quite a remarkable thing that he did. 
Clause 10 repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 which is the last piece of legislation that will record George Parr’s generosity and make reference to his last will and testament. That is a little sad. I understand the reasons but I take the opportunity in debating clause 10 to make sure that the contribution of the Parr family and in particular George Parr to our city is not forgotten. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Clause 10 refers to the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. My colleague Sue Moroney was absolutely right in saying it is with some sadness that a line is being drawn legislatively under the connection with George Parr and the Parr family. It has to be said that through the debate we have had on this bill the Labour members who have been taking part have grown quite a huge respect for George Parr because he was man who was politically active he had a vision for Hamilton and he was engaged with his community. 
George Parr worked alongside his community. He wanted to make New Zealand a better place especially for children. That was particularly shown by the fact that a children’s convalescent home was included in the Parana Park space. George Parr was a man who really wanted to share his wealth. I suppose that he wanted to pay his fair share towards and be part of society especially for the benefit of children. Parana Park was a space for children to play but it was also a space where children’s health was taken care of and their well-being was looked after. Members on this side of the Chamber feel a particular affinity towards that. Labour members are absolutely committed to working alongside our community and making New Zealand a better place especially for our children. 
In Parana Park we have an asset that has been built up by past generations. It was built up when it was in private hands by George Parr and his family and then it was handed over to the public. The Hamilton City Council has maintained that asset and built it up so that it is part of the Hamilton community and will be part of the community’s future. On this side of the Chamber we also believe in protecting our assets—protecting those assets that have been built up by past generations—so that Kiwis can own their future because that is such an important part of building a strong community and a strong economy in New Zealand. 
George Parr wanted to make sure that the New Zealand economy worked for everybody. He had a vision. He had a vision for a number of things. As chairman of the chamber of commerce in Hamilton he was working hard to build the economy in Hamilton. But he had also some projects that would have contributed massively to the economy in the upper North Island. One of those projects was a rail service between Hamilton and Auckland. 
Sue Moroney 
: Kawhia and Raglan. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It was from Kawhia and Raglan to Hamilton. The other project he was particularly interested in was a pipeline to get fresh water from the Waikato River over to Waiuku. Neither of those projects has actually happened but there was a man with a plan and a vision to make the economy work for everybody. It was a plan to create jobs and opportunities not just for people back at the turn of the 20th century in Hamilton and New Zealand but also for their children and their grandchildren. 
That is what Labour is all about as well. We want to be able to go out to New Zealanders and say that the economy works for them and that the Government is able to create jobs and opportunities for them their children and their grandchildren. We want to make sure that everybody gets a fair go and just like George Parr we want to make sure that everybody pays their fair share. George Parr wanted to make sure that New Zealand was going forward. He would be dismayed at the pace at which New Zealand is going backwards at the moment under this National Government. 
George Parr was a man of vision a man with a plan and the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton City Council. He is the man whose legacy we are in a way drawing a line under with clause 10 which repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act. That is the last legislative reference to George Parr a man who wanted to make sure that the economy was going forward and who had a plan to get the economy going. That approach is quite different it has to be said from the approach of the current Government. 
In vesting the Parana Park in Hamilton City Council and handing over the children’s convalescent home to the people of Hamilton George Parr was a man who was so in touch with his community’s needs. He was completely in touch with ordinary Kiwis. I bet that many of the families who needed to send their children to the convalescent home would have been struggling to make ends meet in just the same way that ordinary Kiwis today are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of living when they go to the supermarket when they go to the doctor when they want after-hours care and when they fill up the car at the petrol pump. They are seeing costs going up and they are struggling to make ends meet in the same way that the parents who sent their children to the convalescent home that George Parr donated to the city of Hamilton would have been struggling back then. 
George Parr was a man who was working for the people of Hamilton as well as for the people of New Zealand. He was working for them and their families and he was working for their future. He could have handed over that land to his mates he could have sold it or he could have kept it in his family—kept it for the few. But no he handed it over so that it was an asset for the many. He was not a man who was interested in just looking after his mates which is what this Government is all about; he was a man who was interested in the people of Hamilton. 
Although legislatively clause 10 of this bill brings to an end that association with George Parr and his family it actually continues his legacy. It reassures the people of Hamilton that they have a publicly owned asset one in which their children can play and one that will be available for everybody. Everybody will have access to it and nobody will be barred from going on to the Parana Park land and this legislation although it removes the reference to George Parr and repeals the 1958 Act continues that legacy. 
That is why Labour members have so enthusiastically endorsed this legislation. We want to see this Parliament get alongside ordinary New Zealanders. We are really pleased to support a bill that actually does that because they are just so few and far between in this term of Parliament. We have seen so many bills that have transferred wealth from the many to the few which has seen people on lower incomes marginalised but this bill is for the people. That is why Labour members are so pleased to support it and endorse it. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 10 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand which will amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. I am proud to bring it before the House as the local member for the electorate in which the Royal Society of New Zealand is housed. The Education and Science Committee has been considering the bill and reported back to the House on 11 March. It recommended that the bill proceed with several amendments. I particularly thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their hard work in looking at the bill for understanding the submissions that came to the committee and for making the amendments they have made. 
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act so as to incorporate humanities into the objects and functions of the society. This was based on a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the humanities into the society which was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities in February 2010. The bill expands the objects of the society to include the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of the humanities in addition to science and technology. The functions of the society will also be expanded to include functions relating to the humanities such as fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities and encouraging promoting and recognising excellence in the humanities. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean also that people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society and that people who have achieved distinction in research or the advancement of the humanities can be elected as fellows of the society. The society will also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology. 
The Education and Science Committee recommended a change to the definition of humanities in clause 5(2) of this bill by omitting specific mentions of English and American studies. Members of the committee may choose to share with the House some of the logic in relation to that change. As I understand it it is to do with duplication in that English is dealt with under languages and perhaps American studies is dealt with under cultural studies. Questions have been asked in the process of this bill about some other subject areas that are not mentioned under the definition of humanities. Although I retain an open mind as the member sponsoring this bill as to exactly how we should describe the humanities—and I am more than happy to talk to people as we move into the Committee stage about whether we have that definition right—it is important to note that in addition to traditional science and technology the social sciences are already part of the Royal Society’s work. I think social sciences will include a number of the disciplines people have been concerned about not being specifically mentioned in the list of humanities at the moment. It could perhaps include political science and that is one example. 
I am as I said more than happy as we move into the Committee stage to make sure we have a full consensus in the House about the way in which we describe the humanities in the bill. Most members of the House would acknowledge that when legislation has an exhaustive list of any particular thing under a definition what is not there becomes a concern to people. The committee has done its best to come up with a coherent list but we need to make sure we have consensus on that. We can talk about that as we go into the Committee stage if members of the Committee of the whole House would like to do that. 
In the submission process of the select committee there was a submission from the Royal Society’s Wellington branch and it is worth noting that the Royal Society’s Wellington branch expressed some concerns about bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. It is a good thing when bills are sent to select committees which from time to time the current Government has not done and this is an example of where even on a non-controversial bill there was some debate. It is important that we recognise the good faith of those people who make submissions and we can talk about the concerns over this bill now. The objections the Royal Society’s Wellington branch raised were essentially around its concern that by bringing the humanities into the objects and functions of the society there would be some dilution of the focus on science and technology. That is a concern that people who have been working in the framework of the Royal Society for many years may well have. There was concern from some branch members that the significance of science may reduce in the activities of the society. It is clear that the committee members have considered this and decided they are comfortable with where things have reached. Certainly members of the Royal Society itself feel that the process of making the decision was one that was taken seriously. The council of the Royal Society debated it thoroughly and over quite a long period—a year or more—worked out how to make sure their incorporation of the humanities still allowed for sciences to flourish. 
On a personal level I think the incorporation of the humanities is very important because if New Zealand really is going to grow its economy we need to bring together the innovation that comes from the humanities and social sciences and marry that up with hard-core sciences and technology. Sir Paul Callaghan who spoke here recently at a Speakers’ Science Forum and who is a fellow of the Royal Society spoke very much as he has in the past about the important issue of the merging together of the clever minds of New Zealanders—the people who brought us Weta Digital and so on; the designers; and the people who can conceptualise design. Bringing those people together with the hard scientists is the way we will get innovation in our country. When we look at the objects of the Royal Society as they currently stand I think that idea is understood. Although I can appreciate that some people involved in the Royal Society may have concerns about the dilution of science and technology I believe this bill will actually strengthen the Royal Society by bringing in humanities and by broadening out the objects and the functions of the society to take into account the humanities. It will actually start to bring together some of the synergies that have been mentioned. 
I also note because there was some concern in the Royal Society’s Wellington branch about whether there had been sufficient consultation on incorporating the humanities into the society that the council of the Royal Society discussed this matter as far back as March 2009. Incorporation was discussed at the fellows’ AGM in November 2009 then found its way through by late November 2009 to be formally adopted and by January 2010 to be announced. The memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society was signed on 9 February 2010. A process was gone through by which fellows and those involved in the Royal Society council were able to discuss this issue and I think the decision taken was certainly the right one. 
There is also a slight change being made by the select committee around the appointment of members to the academy council. The process of changing the academy council was one that again went through some significant discussion. It is important obviously when one changes the objects and functions of an organisation like the Royal Society that we are able to have the council operate in a way that goes along with those changes in the functions. But again in the interests of democracy it is worth noting that the fellows of the society had a vote on this and 97 of the fellows were in favour and just two against. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the 1 percent? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No it was 97 actual people and two against. It was not a percentage. The scientist sitting beside me is always thinking in percentage terms. Overwhelmingly the fellows of the society were comfortable with the decision to change the structure of the council. The Education and Science Committee has just slightly amended the wording that relates to the appointment of a person as a member of the society’s council by the society’s regional constituent organisation just so that makes sense. 
It gives me great pleasure to move the second reading of this bill. The bill will be an advance forward. Members on this side of the House are committed to New Zealand being an innovative country; a country that supports education science and technology; and a country that invests in education science and technology. We think that that is how we will provide opportunities for future generations of New Zealanders and not by cutting funding to science not by taking science advisers out of schools and not by ignoring the evidence and research that is important in policy making and elsewhere. We see this bill as a step forward an advance for the Royal Society and one that I hope all members of the House will be able to support. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for allowing me to take a brief call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and it will be relatively brief because it would be fair to say that Mr Robertson has canvassed all the issues that need to be canvassed. 
I think it is important to emphasise that the change being sought was very much at the request of the Royal Society which currently consists of the scientific and technological community. I would like the branches of the society to consider the implications of that. It was scientists and technologists who requested a broadening of their own scope and purposes to include the humanities. They recognised that the existing purposes of the society were simply too narrow so they have incorporated the humanities. That lines up with the general view that prevailed in the funding arrangements for the Marsden Fund. Again that was almost exclusively prior to that convened by the scientific community. 
So this measure was in effect the scientific community reaching out to broaden the scope of research. It is not entirely surprising that that would be the case. In smaller nations like New Zealand royal societies tend to cover both science and the humanities. In larger nations like the United Kingdom it would of course be somewhat different. In our case it is necessary that the one society covers the full range of academic endeavour. So it was a somewhat unusual situation that the society which is very significantly Government funded and indeed administers a number of Government funds had to request its local member—its head office being based in Wellington Central—to advance a bill. But this is perhaps one of those occasions where it is quite a good thing that the public can see collaboration across the Parliament around a common cause. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I note that an Opposition spokesperson on science and innovation is present in the House. It would be fair to say there is a broad consensus around what is appropriate in this area. I note of course that we clearly have our small differences from time to time but they tend to be not so much about purposes but extent if I could put it that way. I guess we in the Government have to deal with the reality of fiscal constraints whereas Opposition parties can perhaps take a slightly freer range about things and indeed are inclined to do precisely that. 
It is interesting that the previous Government was in office for 9 years and had plenty of opportunities to do all sorts of things. 
Moana Mackey 
: R and D tax credits. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: During a time of amazingly large surpluses—$10 billion—it took the previous Government until 2009 to introduce some research and development tax credits. 
Moana Mackey 
: We didn’t require Crown research institutes to give their money back to the Government. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have noted what the interjector said just then. Labour did it just at the point of the global financial crisis. Labour members of course seemingly are still operating in the paradigm of $10 billion surpluses. I would like to remind them from time to time that the world has changed just a little and it is probably necessary to change policies just a little to accommodate that reality. 
I also remind those members—all members because I think this is something we should all be able to all celebrate—that from 2008 through to 2010 there was a significant gain in the total share of GDP of New Zealand that is spent on science and innovation or under the more traditional nomenclature “R and D”. It went from 1.19 percent to 2008 which was the last year I think of the previous Government to 1.30 percent in 2010. That is about an 8 percent increase at a time of economic constraint. It is significant I think that in a time of economic constraint businesses universities and the Government have recognised the need to drive up that share compared with what was one would have to fairly say reasonably halcyon times for the economy. That was not due to the previous Government of course but rather to global economic conditions and the previous Government was not able to achieve the sorts of gains that were needed to be made. 
I will not quibble about these things too much. It is possibly inappropriate to do so to excess during this debate. I just draw these points to the attention of the House. I say to members in the House that those statistics are from Statistics New Zealand and are therefore highly reliable. They came out yesterday I note. 
I am very happy to share in the collaboration in the House to advance this bill. The changes that have been made are perfectly appropriate. They are more general in nature than the bill as first presented and I think we would all agree with that. I also note the other changes. I guess we can take the point about the nature of this bill by how quickly it was resolved by the Education and Science Committee and by the length of the report which covers four short paragraphs. It would be fair to say that this bill will be passed by unanimity and it will go through the Committee stage smoothly thence to the third reading. 
I join with my colleagues in the House in supporting this bill and indeed supporting the endeavours of all of our scientific community and other researchers in the humanities for their hard work over recent years to improve the understanding of the importance of science and innovation in our wider community. I think everyone would concede that there has been a significant change over the last 2 years and the data demonstrated the reality of that. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As the Minister said there is some agreement on the importance of science and innovation in our society. The question as he quite rightly says is the emphasis and how we go about it. I will get to that in a minute but first I want to address the bill before us. What I did agree with the Minister on was that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was brought about by the Royal Society approaching Parliament. It did not come from Parliament; it was at the society’s request. 
We need to remind ourselves that the Royal Society is one of the most pre-eminent prestigious organisations that we have in New Zealand. It is a body of real academic learning and of excellence. It is something that we hold up as being at the top of the pyramid in terms of learning. I will give a couple of statistics to back that up. The Royal Society is independent it is a national academy and it has 1200 members 344 elected fellows 10 regional branches and 60 constituent scientific and technological societies. Nearly 20000 scientists technologists and technicians are represented by the society. In other words the society does a remarkable job. One of the things we have benefited from—and I note the chair of the Education and Science Committee is here—is the sponsoring and bringing of scientists to Parliament. This has been very well-attended by members of Parliament who have come along and listened to some of the more innovative science that is coming out of our institutions right across the board be they Crown research institutes universities or the like. 
This bill was given a pretty thorough reading by the Education and Science Committee. Although it appears uncontroversial there were a number of submissions on it. The bulk of the submissions focused on the question of bringing the humanities into what they believed was a pure scientific organisation. The committee went through the bill quite carefully. We brought what is now the Ministry of Science and Innovation back twice to discuss some of the submissions to make sure that they were given a fair reading and I think we did that. At the end of the day this is something that has been decided on by the Royal Society and I think we must respect its wishes. 
I do not think—and we will get to this in the Committee stage when we look at the bill more closely—that the various branches that are affiliated to the Royal Society have the constitutional ability to change what was the real wish of the Royal Society itself. As I said we did look at changing a couple of the aspects of the bill—for example to take out the clause on American studies and compress the definition of what constituted humanities. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out this issue has gone through quite a large degree of consultation with the Royal Society. It was voted on back in 2009 and passed earlier last year and it has come to the point where we can discuss it in the Committee of the whole House. I do not think there will be too many objections to what it says. 
I want to touch on a couple of points mentioned by the Minister in his speech as I do not feel I can let them go. I will not dispute the information from Statistics New Zealand unlike the Prime Minister in his answers in question time today when he refuted what Statistics New Zealand was saying. There has been an increase in research and development take-up particularly amongst our businesses. The real question for me and I do not think the Minister actually answered this is how much of that was due to his new initiatives—the various vouchers. As we have now waited nearly 2 years for these vouchers and transfers to take effect there is no way that he can claim credit for those vouchers somehow lifting the amount of research and development spending by private firms by 10 percent. There is absolutely no way he can do so. 
Let us look at this initiative which was from 2008. We must remember that during most of 2008 we were under the much more visionary plan of having 15 percent tax credits on research and development spending. Most of that increase was due to the enthusiasm of those companies. They were incredibly enthusiastic about a 15 percent tax credit on their research and development spending. I will mention one company in particular—Gallagher Group in Hamilton— 
Sue Moroney 
: A fine company. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is a great company that has been going a long time. It said to me that the research and development tax credit allowed it to take first more risk and second it made the company think creatively about what was research and development and what was not and to be much more strategic about it. 
That typifies much of the feedback I have had from companies about a 15 percent tax credit. Instead we now have a bunch of technology grants that the Minister crows about but when it comes down to it of the companies that applied for these grants 60 percent of them were turned down. That is an extraordinarily wasteful use of taxpayers’ resources. The Minister fails to understand that he has shifted from a tax credit that would have promoted companies and helped them make real changes to the way in which they do research and development to simply giving them a handout. The Government is now giving companies the extra spending for research and development and what are those companies doing? A lot of them are transferring the money they have been spending and shifting it on to other things. They are transferring the current money on to other things. 
I want to bring up one further point on this matter. When I started I wanted to speak on this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill completely from the point of view of the Royal Society but I cannot sit here and listen to the Minister talk about a step change that in fact is nothing but a step backwards. Let us look at what we could have had. We could have had a 15 percent tax credit that would have— 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second reading. The member is well wide of the mark. 
Grant Robertson 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance. There is a Standing Order that says that we should confine our comments to the bill but it is quite interesting. The member is rebutting some of the comments made earlier. The member has a minute left but I say now to future speakers because I have the bill in front of me and I have been reading it quite closely that tax credits are not actually mentioned. From now on subsequent speakers will confine themselves to the bill. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I will conclude on this argument. As I am sure that the Minister now feels suitably chastised about his ridiculous claims I will get back to the bill. The Royal Society is trying to bring humanities and the scientific community together. It is something that has been done in both Scotland and Canada. It has not been attempted in England or Australia where they have very separate societies but from what I can understand from the Australian experience they wish they could have this sort of a bill rather than the one they have. As Grant Robertson quite rightly put it we need to put our science our best designers and our humanities together to grow New Zealand. This is one way of doing it. I think that the Royal Society has been visionary in the way in which it sees the role for both the Royal Society and the prosperity of New Zealand in regard to the way in which we will be growing this economy which is about bringing the best of our talent and our brains together under this bill. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 In the spirit of the rebuttal of debate and not unmindful of the Deputy Speaker’s recent ruling I will take a moment to remind the member who has just resumed his seat David Shearer of an Education and Science Committee hearing I attended as a regular member in the previous Parliament at which the then Minister of Research Science and Technology Mr Maharey was most defensive about the spend on research in New Zealand. It would behove David Shearer to acknowledge that the party he now represents in Parliament and that he speaks for on science matters had every opportunity over 9 years to do what this Government has done in less than 3 years. 
I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Science Committee that held hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They were constructive hearings. There was broad agreement across the committee and across the House that the bill should proceed. The bill has been introduced at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. There really is little more to be said without wasting the time of the House other than to reiterate that the bill has wide support. I support the bill and I urge its speedy passage through its second reading. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The Greens are pleased to continue to support the progress of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill through the House—in part as a show of support for the organisation that the bill seeks to expand strengthen and deepen. The Royal Society of New Zealand has an honourable and long history of doing significant good work for this country as it has done elsewhere and I am pleased to be a member—albeit a rather inactive member—of the society. 
I think the general level of support for the bill is given notice by the fact that it came through the select committee process virtually unscathed and with very little amendment except for the proposal to drop from clause 5(2) the specific reference to American studies. Try as we might we in the Education and Science Committee could not quite understand why American studies was so unique and different from other cultural studies philosophy law or politics—or many of the other elements that collectively we call the humanities—that it should warrant its own statement and place in the bill. Perhaps those who speak American or spell American culture with a “k” could explain why American studies was included but frankly it was unnecessary. 
Putting that issue aside I recall that in the first reading I reflected on my own academic history having both an undergrad arts degree and a postgraduate science degree. It put me in a position perhaps to appreciate the significant value and indeed the necessity of bringing closer together those two sets of disciplines—science and the humanities—in terms of personal development and critically for economic development for the many aspirations this country has. We will be stronger for having an organisation that incorporates the humanities in it. 
There are so many disciplines that are key to our well-being particularly given that we are a country that still earns a great deal of its living from primary production and from attracting people to visit us in order to enjoy our very beautiful—still stunningly beautiful—but also very fragile and threatened natural world our ecosystems our environment and our outdoors. The disciplines that are primarily responsible for the management of the underpinnings to our primary production and tourism are diverse and multiple. They include geography resource management ecosystem management and some branches of ecology—and particularly human ecology—which are all by their very definition and certainly by their practice disciplines that require people who are able to absorb comprehend analyse and critically utilise a very broad range of information and world views. Our Royal Society which is central to the scientific effort in this country amalgamating with the humanities can only strengthen that. 
The best decisions in the multiple disciplines I mentioned that are all critically involved in land use production and environmental protection are made by people who are able to understand scientific data and information even if those people are non-specialists at least to absorb the key lessons that science can give to us. Those people can also grapple with—at least at a general level again if not at a specialist level—the considerable complexity of economic and social issues and the interactions between the economy as a set of social relationships and the broader set of social relationships that make up our communities and our country. It is important that people making key decisions understand that their world view is unique to them—and perhaps collectively to a group with a similar background education and life experience—but often different from for example indigenous perspectives or the perspectives or world views of other minority groups to the degree that we can overcome the understanding between the dominant world view and another world view and make better-informed better-quality decisions about the management of our productive sector and natural environment. Clearly the Royal Society as one of the considerable pools of collective wisdom that inform this ongoing debate and work is a very valuable addition for humanities to come into. 
In a more general view in terms of the pursuit of science and the application of science in this country I acknowledge that the Government has done some very useful work and made some very useful changes in the structure of research and development with the different models that now apply in terms of the Crown research institutes funding and research capability. Some useful changes have been made but I do think there is still some way to go to get the optimum set of circumstances. As a country we are science poor. We do not attract educate graduate and retain sufficient scientists nor do we do so increasingly in the humanities. We are losing skills and knowledge rather than retaining or gaining them. Some policy settings could be improved to remedy that situation. In terms of science education we can go right back to secondary school level.  
I had the pleasure of attending ASB Polyfest last week which was an extraordinary expression of our future particularly in our very Polynesian Auckland City. In that context I had the opportunity to speak to some secondary school teachers particularly science teachers. They had some very interesting views on the curriculum and on necessary changes to the curriculum. I sensed some frustration that perhaps the teachers are not being heard sufficiently about changes at that very important level—the secondary schooling of our potential science graduates—and that we are missing out. For example nowhere in the curriculum is there adequate coverage or discussion of issues around climate change. In 2011 that is an extraordinary omission. Climate change is a reality; it is a scientific reality. It is also something that requires changes to human behaviour. So the combination of scientific effort scientific application and good understanding of how to motivate and affect human behaviour—to effect behavioural changes in people—is very critical to that. Some work is to be done at the secondary school level in terms of science education. At the tertiary level we are clearly exporting scientists rather than exporting science and that continues. 
I make these comments which are critical in acknowledgment that I think there is some understanding of the problem within Government. But I urge the Government to move faster and to do more to ensure that we retain the scientific capacity that makes major contributions to building our society and economy and that we can continue to do so in the future. 
I will touch very briefly on some of the issues that were raised by the previous speaker Allan Peachey about research and development. We know that members of the Royal Society have some quite strong views about the appropriate funding mechanisms both for public-good science and for private sector science. Some useful work is to be done. I think the current model is for Government support of private sector science. It is still expensive in terms of time. It is convoluted. It is difficult particularly for smaller companies to come to grips with and I think changes in the current model would have major economic benefits going into the future. Kia ora koutou. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Chris Hipkins 
: We’re looking forward to this. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Yes I am sure the member is. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. I will be taking just a brief call because there are other equally important bills on the Order Paper tonight. 
Like all other parties in the House the ACT Party will be supporting this bill. It is a very good bill very timely and at the Education and Science Committee the submissions that we heard persuaded us greatly that this bill was needed. There are two main points that I took from it one of a very practical nature and the other at a much higher level. The higher level perspective is that the humanities will now be incorporated into the Royal Society’s proceedings. I think that is long overdue. One of the submitters—I just cannot quite remember which one now—who was a physical scientist said that when he was researching or looking into any topic in his particular field he could not in this day and age overlook the effect that the humanities had on even his very specific area of physical science. 
The second point which is of a very practical nature is that the Royal Society has already effectively been including many of the humanities issues into its current work and proceedings. So the practical reason that it wanted us to address in this bill was to formalise the practice that was already occurring. 
There were a variety of submissions. Something that has not been raised in the House this evening but I am sure will be discussed more at Committee stage was that some of the branches felt that consultation had not been adequate on this particular issue. The Royal Society did not agree to this point but it is something that I think the Royal Society does need to be and will be in future very mindful of. 
For those reasons I have great pleasure in joining with the other parties in this House in supporting the member’s bill. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker; kia ora tatou i tenei po. Ehara i te mea he nui waku korero mo te pire nei hoi ano kai te whaiwhai haere i te ahuatanga o te korero a wetahi atu. Mena he pono taku korero ehara i te mea he tino mohio au ki nga hohonutanga o te Royal Society 
o Aotearoa kao. Kare ano au kia rongo mo tera ropu i nga tau kua hipa ake ahakoa kai roto au i te ao o te matauranga. Hoi ano i puta te ingoa nei i roto i nga whiriwhiringa i nga wiki kua hipa ake na runga i tera i tu te Pati Maori i tona panuitanga tuatahi ki te tautoko i te motini kia whakatapirihia atu tenei mea te humanities ki roto i nga whainga me nga whakahaere o te society 
. 
I tenei wa e rua pea waku korero ki a tatou o te Whare. Tuatahi ko te wahanga tuarima he take nui kai reira e pa ana ki nga whakamarama. I titiro te Education and Science Committee ki tenei o nga pire ana hei tana me whakaae ka tika tukuna kia haere. Ehara i te mea he nui nga rereketanga ki te whakamarama i tenei mea te humanities 
. 
 Hei ta tera komiti he whakaae kia paku rereke te wahi 5(2) ki te ata titiro i te hohonutanga o nga whakamarama o tenei mea te humanities 
. 
 Me ki kia ukui i nga korero mo te reo Pakeha me nga whakaakoranga o Amerika me pera rawa te korero. I roto i te reo Pakeha ko te reo English me te American studies 
.  
E ai ki tera komiti he moumou taima noa iho te korero mo te reo Pakeha i te mea kai roto tera i te whakamarama whanui mo nga momo reo. He pera ano hoki mo te American studies 
i te mea kai reira tonu te cultural studies 
. 
 No reira e ai ki ta te komiti i roto i tera whiriwhiringa moumou taima noa iho te tini haere i tera wahanga. 
Hoi ano ko taku ko te titiro ki nga korero a te tangata nei a Hori Jones. Ko ia tetahi tangata ki taku mohio he matatau te tangata nei mo nga whakahaere o te ropu nei i te mea ko ia tetahi mema o te peka o Poneke i nga tau e wha tekau pea kua hipa ake. Ko tetahi wahanga me ki tata ki te tekau tau ko ia tera te perehitini o tera ropu. No reira he tangata mohio nei ki nga whakahaere o te ropu. Hei tana ahakoa kua pa mai nga tikanga o Amerika ki a tatou o Aotearoa nui noa ake te panga o nga tikanga Maori ki a Aotearoa no reira hei tana me tapiri tenei mea te whakaako o nga mea Maori ki roto i tenei mea te cultural studies. No reira kai te tino whakaae atu te Pati Maori ki tera momo whakaaro me te akiaki i te Minita ki te ata titiro ki tera take. 
Me te ki ano hoki me titiro pea tatou ki te whiti tuarua o te wahanga tuarima ara te wahi whakamarama. Kei wareware i a tatou ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu a-ture nei ki Aotearoa. Kei wareware i a tatou ko te Maori Language Act o te tau 1987 i a ia e whakatau ana no hoki ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu ake o Aotearoa he mea motuhake o Aotearoa tata ki te 25 o nga tau kua hipa ake. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu ake ki Aotearoa he reo o te tangata whenua he taonga tonu e korowaitia ana i raro i te ahuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kaore te reo Maori e rangona ana i wahi ke iwi ke i tua atu o Aotearoa putake mai ki konei korerotia ana i konei kei konei anake te reo Maori e korerotia ana. Engari ka eke ki te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 he ture tera i muri mai o te Maori Language Act 
engari kare he paku korero o roto mo te ahuatanga o te reo Maori. Na reira ko ta matou ko te whakatakoto i tetahi Supplementary Order Paper 
i te wa o te Komiti ki te kokiri i tera take. No reira tera take tera. 
Tuarua kai te pirangi au ki te whakatakoto i tetahi whakaaro e hangai tonu ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ahakoa nga tutohutanga i te panuitanga tuatahi naku tonu i kauhau ki roto i tenei Whare kare he paku korero o roto mo te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i nga akiakinga i nga whakanuinga o nga take taiao me nga take hangarau i Aotearoa nei. Karekau. Kua kaha tohe nei matou o te Pati Maori me whakauru i te Tiriti o Waitangi hai whakanui i te ahuatanga o nga mea Maori ki roto i te ao putaiao ki roto i nga mahi hangarau kia taea ai e te motu te ata titiro i nga mea e rua e korerohia ake nei na runga i te tirohanga Maori. 
No reira koi nei ta matou e aki nei. Ki a matou he pai ke me titiro pera rawa na runga i te mea i te nuinga o te wa kaore era take e korerohia ana; ara te tirohanga o te Ao Maori ki a ia ano ki tona ao ka mutu te tirohanga o te motu ki taua Ao Maori. E hia ke nei nga momo huarahi kai mua i te aroaro kia taea e tenei pire te whakawhanui i tona titiro. Kia titiro whanui tenei pire ki te ahuatanga o te matauranga Maori otira ki te whakanui i tera momo ahuatanga. No reira ko taku tera pea na runga i te ahuatanga o te korero mo te rangatiratanga o roto i nga mahi putaiao o roto i nga mahi rangahau o roto i nga mahi pangarau he ao ano tera. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu kati me titiro ki te wahanga o te tangata whenua me titiro ki te wahanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i tenei momo whiriwhiringa. 
Ka mutu he nui nga patai hai whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tenei wa engari ko te aki tuatahi ara kia hoki ra ano ki taku korero i te tuatahi me titiro ki te ahuatanga o te reo Maori na runga i tona putaketanga mai i Aotearoa nei. Me titiro ano ra ki te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakawhanui tonu i te titiro ki tenei pire. Koi nei ta matou e aki nei. Kei reira tonu etahi whainga matua o roto i te Ao Maori ara ko te mana whenua ko te mana tupuna ko te whakapapa enei korero katoa ko te kaitiakitanga ka taea e wai ranei te titiro ki te hohonutanga o enei kaupapa. No reira kare e nui nga korero i tua atu o tera hoi no ko te ki atu ae a te wa o te Komiti ka whakatakotohia etahi tapiringa korero hai mea wananga ma te Whare katoa kia taea e tatou te wetewete i enei take hai taua wa. No reira kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us this evening. It is not as though I have much to contribute to the debate on this bill but I merely want to follow up aspects that others before me have commented on. To be honest I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the Royal Society of New Zealand—none at all. In years past I had not heard about that organisation even though I was involved in the education sector. But the name of this society has emerged in the discussions during the past weeks and as a consequence the Maori Party got up at the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to support the notion of incorporating the humanities into the objectives and functions of the society 
. 
At this stage I have two points perhaps to make in my address to us of the House. The first one relates to clause 5. It contains an important matter relating to definitions. The Education and Science Committee examined this bill and agreed emphatically that it be passed and be allowed to proceed. It is not as though many changes are required to define this thing called the humanities. The committee recommended that a minor change be made to clause 5(2) in respect of examining the depth of the definition of the humanities and to omit references to English and American studies or words of that effect in the English language. In the view of that committee it is a waste of time to specify English because it is already in the broad statement about language types. The same can be said about American studies because it is already there in cultural studies. So according to the committee in that discussion it is a sheer waste of time to make those changes in that clause.  
But I want to pick up on the advice from George Jones. He is a person who to my knowledge is reliably informed about the work of the society having been a member of the Wellington branch for 45 years including nearly a decade as the president of that organisation. Mr Jones noted that although America has had some influence on New Zealand culture there has certainly been far more influence from Maori and he suggested that Maori studies could therefore be added in addition to cultural studies. The Maori Party fully endorses that kind of thinking and urges the Minister to examine it more closely.  
Perhaps we should look at subclause (2) of clause 5 the interpretation clause. We must not forget that the Maori Language Act 1987 declared te reo Maori as an official language—almost a quarter of a century ago. We advocate that te reo Maori is the foundation language of New Zealand the ancestral language of the indigenous people and one of the heirlooms guaranteed protection under the Treaty of Waitangi. It also provides this country with a unique language identity in the rest of the world as this is the only place where Maori is spoken widely. Yet the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997—introduced some 10 years after the Maori Language Act—has not included this major development in its text. So we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to have it debated there. So that is that point which I leave there.  
Secondly I want to put a thought before us that relates specifically to the Treaty of Waitangi. Despite recommendations in the first reading that were the focus of my address in this House there is still no reference made to the critical role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand—not one mention. We of the Maori Party argued strongly that the Treaty of Waitangi be included to enhance things Maori in the domain of science and technology enabling the nation to look critically at these two things being referred to based on a Maori perspective. 
So these are our urgings. We think that it is better to look at things that way because most times those matters are never aired—the way Maoridom views the world compared with his or her view of the world; and eventually the nation’s view compared with that of Maori. There are so many ways in which this bill could stretch its view. It could have taken a wider view towards aspects of Maori knowledge in terms of broadening that aspect. Perhaps that is just my take on things based on the kind of talk about self-determination in relation to activities concerning science research and technology. That is another sphere. What we are saying is enough. Give due consideration to that which pertains to the indigenous people of the land and the Treaty of Waitangi in this part of the deliberations.  
Further to that we have many questions to put before the House at this time but first I go all the way back to my first address and urge that the situation as it relates to the Maori language be considered because it is the founding language of New Zealand. Consider the Treaty of Waitangi again as a means of broadening the outlook towards this bill. These then are our urgings. But there are so many other major things that Maoridom is striving for. Land control ancestral control genealogy all these talks guardianship—who can examine the depth of these matters? So there is not much more to add further except to say yes at Committee stage we will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers for the House as a whole to debate and unravel in the future. Greetings to us 
.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to address the House during the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. When one does so one does so with a level of confidence that there is universal support for the bill in the House. 
We had 13 submissions. Six submitters asked to be heard. One thing that was interesting to the Education and Science Committee was the disconnect between the various provincial organisations of the Royal Society and the Royal Society itself over the constitution. I think that there is a better understanding now if not an agreed position taken by the various provincial arms of the Royal Society. 
The Royal Society has been going since 1867. As has been borne out the amendment to clause 5 was the only substantive change that the committee recommended. In doing so it amends that clause by removing the words “English and other” and “and American studies” for obvious reasons which will no doubt be drawn out in the Committee stage. 
Other than that this is very tidy legislation coming before the House. I have the pleasure of supporting the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand in support of the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am happy to do so both as a member of the Labour caucus and as a member of the Royal Society itself. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson the member of Parliament for Wellington Central on bringing this important legislation to the House. 
The legislation marks an evolving of the Royal Society to include the humanities. That inclusion is not universally agreed with throughout the science sector but it is an idea whose time has come I think it is fair to say. The reality of the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research that is undertaken by not only our universities but also our Crown research institutes and private research institutes shows that it is getting more and more difficult to draw a line between true scientific endeavours and those that enter into the humanities. I think that inclusion of the humanities makes a lot of sense. Including and promoting research in the humanities as well as in what would be considered more pure science is something the Royal Society has been doing in practice for a while. So for that reason it makes sense that in many respects the legislation brings the Royal Society’s legislation into line with its actual practice in the current day. 
Some questions were raised I understand at the Education and Science Committee and there were some concerns from some branches of the Royal Society about the level of consultation. I as a member of the Royal Society was consulted on the bill. I received my consultation pack and my voting papers in the mail. I thought the information provided was appropriate. The information provided was fulsome and I was quite comfortable with the level of consultation provided by the Royal Society. 
It is particularly important that we continue to support multidisciplinary approaches to research. There are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary approaches going on around New Zealand. During the time of the previous Labour Government we started funding centres of research excellence that were based in universities Crown research institutes and private research institutes. Those centres really supported the notion of multidisciplinary research which is what the Royal Society is reflecting here in the legislation. 
A multidisciplinary approach draws together people from many different areas around a common focus in research. It may involve not just scientists but also economists sociologists lawyers or any number of people who can all come together and work on a particular area of scientific research that is crucial for the economy of this country. That approach is something Labour very much supported when we were in Government. It makes sense that the Royal Society which has also been supporting this multidisciplinary approach to research also brings its own legislation and practices into line so that it is not stymied and so there are no barriers that in any way stop these different areas of the research community from collaborating as much and as fully as they possibly can. 
Some of the multidisciplinary research that is going on around the country really is world class. I urge members of the House to take note of a lot of the research that is being done. I think one of the things we as parliamentarians should be able to do is say to the people who put us here that we do have regard for the research that is being done not only in New Zealand—particularly in New Zealand where it is relevant to our own situation—but also around the world. Sometimes it concerns me—and I know that this concern came through in some of the submissions—that due consideration is not given to that research. 
The multidisciplinary research that is being done at the Otago University has shown the absolutely important and crucial role that quality early childhood education can play in the long-term achievement of an individual. It is the first type of research of this kind that has been done around the world. It has shown very very clearly that individuals who have gone through not just any kind of childcare but early childhood education that is good quality and specifically teacher-led can have far greater outcomes not just throughout the rest of their education but for the rest of their lives. That research is the kind of multidisciplinary research that needs to be taken into account by members of this House. We need to be able to say that we have regard to the research. If parliamentarians choose to ignore research then that is their prerogative; they are elected to be here. But they should at least have to show regard to it and they should at least have to be prepared to explain to people why they ignore the overwhelming research in a particular area when making policy decisions. 
Labour has always been very supportive of this evidence-based approach to policy. I know that the Royal Society has also been particularly supportive of that approach in its work. Scientists and researchers across the board do not carry out research just for fun. They do not do it just for the hell of it. They do it because they want to contribute to the information out there to the decision-making processes to good-quality policy decisions and to policy-making processes. 
We have heard a lot of fine words in this debate. I welcome comments from all members in the debate on the legislation but it has to go further than just voting in favour of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has to go much further than that. It has to go much further and we have to be able to say as a Parliament that not only do we support the work the Royal Society does—its move to include humanities and its move to support more multidisciplinary approaches to research—we are going to take regard of that research when it is completed we are not going to ignore it and if we believe the research is wrong we will challenge it. We will give reasons why we are challenging it and why we do not believe that the research should be given due regard. 
I can think of the example of boot camps. All the research told us they would not work. All the research said the participants had worse outcomes not better and that the camps create fitter faster criminals. All the research about boot camps was very clear yet a policy that disregarded the research was put in place. 
A party runs on a policy platform and when it is in Government it has a mandate to bring policies into place but the Government should have to explain to the public why it is ignoring every single piece of evidence out there and why it thinks the evidence is wrong and it is right. A lot of taxpayers’ money is being spent. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve to know that their money is being well spent that the research is not being ignored and that the evidence is being listened to before money goes towards pet projects that are frankly doomed to failure before they even start and we flush $20 million of taxpayers’ money down the drain. 
I hope that the fine words we have heard— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just drawing your attention to the speech to see whether it is going beyond the scope of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am waiting for the member to make it relevant. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may or may not be aware that prior to the dinner break the Deputy Speaker gave an explicit instruction to all members that after—how can I put it—a slight digression by myself and Mr Shearer he felt that it kind of closed off that issue and that all other speakers essentially were to speak on the bill. He felt that Mr Shearer and I had had an appropriate and adequate debate but that probably should be confined to the two speakers I have just referred to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I was not aware of that ruling. I have frequently told the House that of all the debates a second reading debate is pretty much the tightest. If members want to make analogies or comparisons that is appropriate but they must be linked to the material pertaining to the second reading. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I apologise to National members. I thought the Royal Society of New Zealand was about research but apparently not. That is all right; if it makes the member uncomfortable then I will speak about something else. One of the key achievements as I said of the previous Labour Government was the multidisciplinary approach that is being taken up in this legislation. As I also said before there was some disquiet at first about the inclusion of humanities into the Royal Society’s role. The reason I was discussing some of the areas that the humanities go into is to show that crossover to show why it is important that this change in the Royal Society be supported and actually to brag a little bit about the fantastic research that is going on out there. I am very disappointed that National members are so uncomfortable about that that they feel the need to shut me down. 
Louise Upston 
: We just want to talk about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well they want to talk about the bill because they do not want to talk about their appalling record in this area but that is fine; we can move on. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes that’s right. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh the boot camps. The Minister wants to interject on me about boot camps. 
Chester Borrows 
: No they’re not boot camps; they are Limited Service Volunteers not Fresh Start camps. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Limited Service Volunteers” is the nice phrase National has come up with but they are boot camps. That is what National members called them during the election campaign but now they have realised that the name does not sound good so they want to move away from it. The fact is that it does not matter what National members call boot camps they do not work and the research shows that. 
The Royal Society has often taken pains to show how important it is that Governments follow an evidence-based approach to policy. What is it about an evidence-based approach to policy that terrifies National members so much? All the Royal Society has been asking for for the longest time is that we look at the evidence because the best example of how things are going to go in the future is how they have worked before—and boot camps did not work before. The research shows that and the evidence shows that. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I have made some interjections but I did stop with the interjections and the speech has just continued and continued with no reference whatsoever to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member has to take some responsibility for what happened. Moana Mackey you have 30 seconds left. Talk to us about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This legislation is very good. As I said as a member of the Royal Society I was completely happy with the consultation that was undertaken and with the ability given by members of the Royal Society to participate in that consultation. I know that concerns were raised at the Education and Science Committee about the consultation which is why I want to mention it. 
The bill is a step change—as Government members are so fond of saying—for the Royal Society. It brings in the humanities. It is a welcome change and I look forward to the Committee stage debates on the bill when I might be able to talk about things without the National members getting so upset. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very proud to speak in the second reading debate to support the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Some people will be a bit puzzled as to which legislation we are discussing in this debate. It is not contentious legislation which some of those listening will be quite staggered to hear but it makes a quite a simple change. All it is doing is putting into law what the Royal Society has already been doing in practice for the last 12 months which is including the humanities in the work it does. 
If we look at the preamble to the bill we see that when the Royal Society was first set up one of its purposes was the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. I am a proud member of the National Government which has a fine record in this area. Fantastic work has been done by the Minister of Science and Innovation Dr Wayne Mapp who is sitting behind me. I am very proud that this change to this legislation supports further work in science in this country. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to speak very briefly on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member Grant Robertson who brought it to the House. As we know the bill makes a fairly minor amendment but it is actually a very big deal for the people who are involved in the Royal Society. 
We have certainly heard that the consultation was far from perfect in the eyes of some of the members. However it seems that the changes made at the request of the Royal Society are mainly minor. The inclusion of the humanities is an important step to take and I believe that as this bill beds in we will find over time that the concerns of some of the members are allayed as they better understand how the change can benefit the Royal Society in the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 As Jo Goodhew has just said the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill does mean a lot to the people of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Although only a word or so of the principal Act is being changed the bill has huge implications because the humanities are included in the objects and functions of the society. 
We have the humanities sitting here and science and technology sitting over there. I ask members to imagine a Venn diagram. I think the argument stems from whether science and the humanities overlap in a Venn diagram. I think it is really important and I think Moana Mackey spelt things out quite articulately to be honest. A debate has gone on for a number of years about the merging of the humanities the sciences and technology. Because I am a new member to the Education and Science Committee I missed out on the submissions. I personally was not fully aware of the Royal Society of New Zealand and what it does so like all good researchers I googled it. The debate has gone on for some time. I came across  
The Two Cultures 
 an influential 1959 Rede Lecture. So the debate has gone on even since 1959. The lecture was by British scientist and novelist C P Snow and its thesis was that “the breakdown of communication between ‘the two cultures’ of modern society the sciences and the humanities was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.” I find it quite amazing that people were thinking at that sort of level about the sciences and the humanities and thinking that the breakdown of communication between them—calling them “the two cultures”—was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems. 
So what is science? I looked up a definition of science and it stated science is “an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle for whom scientific knowledge was “a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.” It is stating there that science is a body of knowledge that can be rationally and logically explained. Technology is “the usage and knowledge of tools techniques crafts systems or methods of organisation in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species’ ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.” I believe that science and technology are traditionally thought to be more closely related to each other than they are to the humanities. I know from teaching technology at schools that technology is the search for a solution to a problem or a need. 
Then we come to humanities. “Humanities are the academic disciplines that study the human condition using methods that are primarily analytical critical or speculative as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural science. Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages literature law history philosophy religion and visual and performing arts including music and theatre. Additional subjects included in the humanities are technology anthropology area studies communication studies cultural studies and linguistics although these are also regarded as social sciences.” So the humanities look more at the human side of things—obviously being “humanities”—compared with the sciences which as I said earlier is a body of knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. 
The Royal Society does a lot of good in a lot of areas around research the promotion of studies and projects like that. When I was the principal at Kaitaia Intermediate School a teacher at that school took a year’s leave with pay—paid for by the Royal Society—to undertake a study of Ninety Mile Beach and the effect of pingao the native plant that is similar to a hard flax on the sand dunes and erosion and toheroa would you believe. There is a belief that toheroa spawn attach themselves to the pingao. It was a year-long scientific study by this teacher sponsored by the Royal Society. That is an illustration of the good work the society is doing. As I was going through the society’s website I saw the number of ways that it supports and sponsors high school students on overseas trips to undertake higher study. The society supports all manner of research projects. I think it is important to raise this point for the people out there to whom this bill would not mean a lot. I think it is important that people hear and understand exactly the contribution that the Royal Society makes to New Zealand. 
Section 5 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is one of the sections that is being changed. It states: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.” That is what the Act currently says. Section 5 is being amended by clause 6 to state: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science technology and the humanities.” 
I have explained what is involved in technology science and humanities. Sociology which is one of the humanities is the study of society. It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—that “uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social activity often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and social structures.” That is one of the fields of the humanities that has been brought into the amendment bill. Anthropology is another field of the humanities. It is the study of humanity and it has origins in the natural sciences the humanities and the social sciences. Anthropology asks what defines humans who the ancestors of modern humans are what humans’ physical traits are how humans behave why there are variations and differences among different groups of humans and how the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens has influenced its social organisation and culture. 
That is just a broad outline for those people out there who are wondering what the Royal Society does and what this bill is about. We need to recognise the massive contribution the society makes to research and to education in New Zealand. Even though this is a non-controversial bill and it will probably slip through under most people’s radar I think it is right that we take the time to talk about the great work the society is doing the work that it has done and hopefully the work that it will continue to do in New Zealand for many many more years to come. Kia ora. 
Bill read a second time. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 16 February. 
Clause 4A Requirements as to constitutions of councils ( 
continued 
)  
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Obviously I had not made it very far into my contribution when we were last considering this bill. Clause 4A goes to the heart of one of the questions that members on this side of the Chamber have about this bill. The member in charge of this bill Heather Roy said that she does not want to see the end of students associations and that her intention is not to destroy students associations. But clause 4A amends the principal Act to delete any reference to students associations on the tertiary institutes’ councils. The original section that it deletes section 171(2)(e) refers to having students on the council “in the case of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory in accordance with the constitution or rules of the association;”. Obviously this bill changes the compulsory nature of it. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to remove any reference to students associations. 
So I speak in support of the amendment proposed by Grant Robertson which is to replace the current clause 4A with wording that includes “(i) following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the institution where no student association exists at the institution; or (ii) by a student association where such an association exists at the institution:”. That clause seems to sit perfectly reasonably with the intention of the bill if the intention of the bill is not to see the end of student associations. 
I think the problem with the way the clause is worded at the moment is that it is quite inflexible in dealing with the way in which different student associations might be structured at different universities and polytechnics and with the way they might operate. I will use the example of the student representation on the Massey University Council because at Massey University a number of students associations represent its different campuses and its extramural students. Students have three representatives on the university council and they use their right to appoint people to the university council to ensure there is adequate representation of internal students extramural students and Maori students. That approach to representation on the council has been student-directed; it has been decided by students and it can be changed by students because students have control over the way they are represented on that council. 
But the current wording of the bill we are looking at says that all that power to decide the way in which students will be represented on the council would sit with the institution itself. So the university the polytechnic the wananga or the private training establishment—whichever organisation we are talking about—would have the decision-making power about the way in which students would be represented on that institution’s council. 
The whole point of having student representation on those councils is to ensure that there is a student voice at the highest decision-making body at those institutions. That is completely undermined by the way the bill is written at the moment because students would not be able to decide the process by which they decide who represents them. That decision would sit solely with the institution itself. I suppose the member in the chair might make the argument that students on the council could have a say in that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take my first call on clause 4A. I will carry on from where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway in his impromptu address just finished. There is both good and bad in what is happening here with clause 4A. The good is that the Education and Science Committee recognised that there was now a gap in relation to student representation on councils. The select committee realised that there needed to be a specific clause that would continue to facilitate students being represented on councils. So in that sense it is a good thing that the select committee has brought forward this issue. However the solution proposed in clause 4A cuts to the heart of the problem of the whole bill—that is the loss of student control of student affairs. We have been over this issue a number of times in the earlier readings in this debate. At the heart of one of the major objections that this side of the Chamber has to this bill is the fact that students who for generations now have had some control of the way in which affairs are administered at the institution they are studying at are losing that control. We will come to the next clause in the bill later in which we will talk about how that plays out in terms of the collection of fees and so on. 
This clause is about something quite fundamental: the representation of students on tertiary institution councils. It is a vital role about which the select committee heard that institutional representatives really value having on tertiary councils students who can represent student views and who they know have been through some process themselves of being elected. Those students are there on a representative basis to provide a voice and a feedback mechanism for those institutions. 
I remember visiting the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology last year and the chief executive there made it really clear to me that on a number of decisions made by the council having duly elected students on that council made a difference and made for better decisions. That is particularly the case as Iain Lees-Galloway was just mentioning before in terms of multiple-campus environments. The Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is an example. It is not as big as Massey University obviously but it is an institution with a multiple-campus environment and those student representatives who have a role across those different campuses add something to the tertiary council that those who perhaps represent a particular geographic area in terms of the wider council membership cannot do. 
The amendment in my name to clause 4A is an attempt to say yes I thank the select committee for having put this up but clause 4A as agreed to by the committee does not bring this issue of representation into the control of students. Once again the clause does what this bill does throughout: it takes away from students the ability to manage their own affairs and hands that over to an institution. The institution may or may not have the best interests of the students at heart and it may or may not come up with a truly democratic process for the selection of students to represent the wider student body. But we know that student associations where they exist can run that process and that students elected to a council can be truly legitimate representatives of the students at that institution. The amendment I have put forward acknowledges the situation that we obviously do not want to occur but is a likely outcome of Heather Roy’s bill—that is that there will not be student associations for some campuses. That will be the outcome and the member sponsoring the bill needs to acknowledge that. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: There aren’t now. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I think there are one or two I tell Heather Roy. I think she will find that under this bill there will be a whole lot more institutions where students do not have student associations. My amendment however acknowledges that sad reality in subparagraph (i): “following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the association where no student association exists at the institution;”. But where a student association is in existence it should be the body that elects those students to tertiary institution councils. I served as a student on a tertiary institution council for 2 years and I think that the student voice is an important voice that should not be lost. 
Shane Ardern 
: And what’s changed since 1960? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Oh a harsh man! It was in 1993 and 1994 actually—2 years I might add in which under a National Government fees went up by 18 percent one year and 15 percent the other year. There was a small fracas with the police around one of those that I am still not able to fully talk about. But an important role was played by student leaders right across the country at that time. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I have uncovered a bit of an issue and I would like to ask the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill some questions about clause 4A and the fact that it amends section 171(2) of the existing Education Act. I think we need to be clear about what we are talking about here. I know that the member in charge of the bill is one to do her homework and I am sure she will be in a position to answer the questions I am about to ask her. 
The issue I have is that this bill amends only the constitutions of university councils. An earlier amendment passed by this National Government early in its term amended the constitutions of polytechnic councils so that they no longer have guaranteed student representation at all. Polytechnic councils were previously subject to the same provisions of the Education Act that this bill amends but the Government changed it so that polytechnics are no longer covered by those clauses. Polytechnic councils now have four representatives appointed by the Government and four representatives appointed by the tertiary institutions. That has effectively given all the power to make up the composition of a polytechnic council to the Government and to the institution. Students are no longer guaranteed representation on a polytechnic council notwithstanding any changes that may or may not be made in this bill. So what we are talking about here relates to universities and I believe to wananga. I believe that these provisions still apply to wananga. 
The question I have for the member in charge of the bill—who I am sure has done her homework on this—is how students and staff have fared at the polytechnics where the councils already have the power to determine the nature of student representation. This bill will hand universities and wananga the power to determine the manner in which student representatives are selected. I welcome the fact that this provision guarantees that at least one of the representatives on a university or wananga council will be a student. I welcome that because that guarantee is not currently afforded to polytechnic students or institutes of technology students due to the change the National Government made that removed their right to have a representative on their council. 
But the real question I have for the member—and I am sure she has done her homework on it and I am sure she is looking it up right now and will respond to it—is how students have fared. Have the institutions the polytechnics continued to afford students that ability to be represented on their councils even though they are no longer guaranteed that right? If they have not what confidence can university and wananga students have that they will not be treated in exactly the same way if this bill is passed in its present form? In other words they could lose their student representation on the councils of their institutions. It is actually a very important point because ultimately students are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution. It could be argued that alumni are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution but I would say that the current students probably have the most current interest in the affairs of the institution and have provided a very significant contribution to the governance of those institutions. 
I have been on a university council. I served on the Victoria University of Wellington Council here in Wellington for 2 years. It was a really interesting experience and I think the two student representatives that Victoria University’s current constitution allows for provide very very valuable input into that institution’s governance process. In the case of Victoria University the president of the students association—which was me at the time—is automatically one of those student representatives. The other is elected by an election of the student population at large. The students association determined how that was done because under the existing law the filling of those positions is delegated to the students association. The students association is therefore guaranteed one student representative; it could have up to three. Massey University where Mr Lees-Galloway was has three student representatives. We argued at Victoria University for three student representatives. 
Grant Robertson 
: Your two were as good as three. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We got only two. But as my colleague Mr Robertson just pointed out two student representatives from Victoria are definitely worth three from Massey. I think our quality meant that we managed to get by with only two whereas Massey University unfortunately needed to have three in order to provide the same value to the council’s governance processes. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill because it cuts to the heart of what the bill is all about. It cuts to the heart of the issue and what we are here for. In fact it may well be that if we look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper in particular and agree to its amendments it would meet pretty much the concerns of the member who is pushing through this bill the Hon Heather Roy. I will go back quickly to his amendment to clause 4 which states: “To omit ‘uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations’ and substitute ‘but allow periodic referenda to test this issue’ ”. That seems to me to be a perfect recipe that would bridge the gap between what Heather Roy would like to see in terms of this bill and what we are able to live with ourselves. It would mean that instead of this legislation being repealed more or less about 2 or 3 months after it was enacted it would be able to stand the test of time and continue. I think a lot of people would agree to that amendment. 
I come back to clause 4A which amends section 171(2). I pick up the point Chris Hipkins was talking about that while this bill has been going through Parliament we have had some substantial changes in the make-up of councils pushed through by the Education Amendment Act late last year. This means that students associations will not be represented as fully on a council as we would like. This is a great loss. Previously we had an opportunity to have real students association representation that could be properly representative of students themselves but now that will be severely degraded. We will not have the same ability to have students advocate on a council for the issues they really want. The council will have to choose between some of the other representatives they have—I think there are four plus four—and students associations are I believe the ones that will miss out. 
But more important the quality of the participation on those councils is about the representation. If we do not have a students association large enough to be able to support students a students association that can give service not only in the other things we have talked about before—health student support guidance sporting facilities and so on—but in the advocacy of student issues then there will be a real problem. 
I was in my electorate on Monday this week speaking to the students association president there. The worry is the types of services the students association will be able to offer at Unitec the polytech there—the largest polytech in New Zealand. The people there will have a real issue particularly with clauses 4 and 4A as to their ability to be represented in a truly representative way even though they have a council that is extremely open-minded and an exceptional chief executive officer. But they will not have that sort of representation by right; they will have it at the behest of the chief executive officer of Unitec. 
In conclusion and speaking to clause 4A which amends section 171(2) I think that Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper 191 amendments to both clause 4 and clause 4A are excellent suggestions made in the spirit of trying to achieve something that will be enduring for all students. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 4A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4A be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 4A agreed to. 
Clause 6 New sections 229A to 229CA substituted 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a point of clarification. You have called for clause 6. Can you clarify whether new clause 6A will be debated as a separate clause? I just want to make sure that it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes that is correct. Is the member seeking the call? 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Yes Mr Chair. I do want to speak on this clause. In fact I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this particular clause because this clause is where the rubber hits the road in the bill. I am sure that even the member in the chair Heather Roy will acknowledge that this is indeed where the rubber hits the road in this part of the bill. 
Initially I will make two comments about the beginning of clause 6 which inserts new section 229A “Membership of students associations voluntary” in the Education Act 1989. We have said on numerous occasions in this debate that we fundamentally oppose this particular part of the bill. This is the bit of the bill that will destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have seen from Australia and that is what will happen in New Zealand as well. This provision fundamentally undermines the ability of students associations to organise and to resource the work they do. It means they will become beholden to the institutions they are part of and it means that students will lose control of student affairs. This is the undermining of student representation—the student representation that has meant many individual students have been able to carry on with their study and to succeed and pass because they have had a resourced students association to back them up. 
When I sat on the Education and Science Committee on this bill I think my colleagues from National actually began to realise as the debate on the bill went on that students associations play a fundamental role in the success of students in their study. We heard of numerous examples. I have mentioned before the example from Waikato University of the students whose flat burned down who were being ripped off by the insurance company and who were being biffed out of their flat. It was the Waikato Student Union that made sure those students were able to continue to study and stay at university. We heard other examples of a similar nature. 
New section 229A will fundamentally undermine the representative role the advocacy role that has meant so much to so many students not just in terms of those practical day-to-day issues but also in the overall advocacy that has seen interest-free student loans. It has seen going as far back as the 1970s the standard tertiary bursary which resulted from advocacy in those situations by the New Zealand University Students’ Association backed by its constituent associations from polytechs universities and wananga. That kind of work will not now be possible with students associations undermined by new section 229A. 
I make a bit of an appeal to my National colleagues. As I said in the debate we heard at the select committee we felt that our National colleagues were beginning to realise there was a possible way through to enable them to address some of the issues they had in relation to their fear of compulsion and of what that meant in terms of freedom issues—things they obviously genuinely see as being important. We felt in the discussions that a compromise was possible. That compromise was built around the amendments on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that I have on the Table. One of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 191 is about ensuring that if a decision is made to enforce what is in new section 229A it is undertaken only after a nationwide referendum of students. It should be done only after a nationwide referendum of students. 
At this point it is important to remember that what is being undone by new section 229A is in fact National policy. The compromise from the 1990s relating to the ability of students to call for referenda and go to a voluntary position was the policy of National driven through by Tau Henare of all people among others. But the Bolger-Shipley Government said that it thought that policy was the right thing to do. That Government also did that at the end of a long submission process after it had heard from the institutions the students and the families of students. It said that it did not want to ruin students associations. It wanted to address some of the issues it had in relation to freedom of choice and compulsion and it did that by putting in place the ability for students to call for a referendum in order to give students some choice in whether there would be a students association. That is what is being undone by new section 229A. 
But I think that in the select committee we found further compromise via the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers and in this case that is to allow for a nationwide referendum. That is the first area—the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add after “association” at the end of new section 229A “if a majority of students support voluntary student membership in a nationwide 2011 referendum”. I ask why National members would oppose that. That is students making a choice. Of course members on this side of the Chamber oppose the bill in principle but having realised that our National colleagues on the select committee wanted something different we have gone looking for something that is a compromise. 
I am making a plea tonight to the National members of the committee who sat through all of those submissions and heard overwhelmingly from students and tertiary institutions that they want to retain representative well-resourced students associations. Above all the submitters wanted to retain some sense of student control and student choice. We have the ability to do that in the amendment we have put forward to new section 229A. I know that National members on the select committee wanted to look at those ideas and I am calling on them tonight to think about how they can make sure that students associations will continue and will be able to address some of the issues they have. That is what we are looking at in the amendment to new section 229A. 
The other amendment I will talk about in relation to that issue is to do with whether students can request a change to membership. Obviously that is the situation we have at the moment. If 10 percent of students want to have a referendum then there will be a referendum. We have always felt that that was a reasonable proportion of students. We are happy to look at compromise. We are happy to bring that percentage down a little bit if that is enough for National or we are happy to simply say that there will be a referendum every few years. If for instance students do not make the choice to put forward the idea of a referendum and if a number of years elapse—5 years was a figure I heard bandied around in the select committee—then after that 5-year period there will automatically be a referendum. I stress that this is not the preferred option of members on this side of the Chamber; our preferred option is to continue to allow students to organise on their own terms. But we recognised during the select committee process that there may need to be some room for movement so that we do not go down the path of destroying students associations because that is what the new section 229A and the subsequent clauses will do. 
There is an option on the Table in my Supplementary Order Paper 191 that I believe fulfils the desires of the National caucus to make some change but still allow students associations to succeed. The opportunity is there tonight for National members to adopt those amendments. It will still mean a change it will still mean that things will be different for student associations but it will safeguard those vital representative roles those vital advocacy roles—the student services that have made such a big difference to the health and well-being of students. 
National members on the Education and Science Committee heard time and time again during the select committee process how vital those things were and how easily they would be undermined. I know that the National members of that select committee knew that and while Roger Douglas was there it seemed that they would go with it. It seemed as if they would go with it then some very unfortunate shenanigans in the ACT Party saw Heather Roy returned to the select committee and mysteriously the National members’ enthusiasm for some form of compromise waned. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Persuaded by the member. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am not sure; persuaded by the member—perhaps. There seemed to be a sudden shift in National’s view at that point. That is unfortunate because I strongly believe that in these Supplementary Order Papers a middle ground can be found. That is not what members on this side of the Chamber would prefer by any means but it is certainly something for which we think we can see a wide buy-in. 
As it stands new section 229A which is the first change within clause 6 is one that I believe will see the end of student associations on a lot of campuses. Perhaps it will not on some of the larger university campuses where students associations have service level agreements—and we will come to that a little further on as we go through some of the other changes in clause 6—because there is scope for certain types of service level agreements. But for those polytechnic campuses where students associations will not be able to enter into those sorts of service level agreements new section 229A is the death of student associations and the death of all the good work like the advocacy the representation and the other services that have meant so much to generations of students. It will be very sad if these provisions are passed tonight as they are now because those things will be undermined. 
There is an opportunity here for compromise. National members should take it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 This is where the rubber hits the road with the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and I am looking forward to the very fulsome debate that is going to take place here. I am interested particularly in the fact that nobody from the other side of the Chamber has got to their feet and spoken in favour of this bill despite 98 percent of the submissions made to the Education and Science Committee opposing it. National and the ACT Party are using their majority in the House to push this legislation through despite overwhelming opposition at the select committee. It says something about National’s view of democracy that despite the fact that an overwhelming number of submissions to the select committee was opposed to this legislation National is going to push it through anyway. 
I want to talk about what this legislation will mean for individual students and for the costs and the challenges that they currently face when studying at their tertiary institutions. At the moment students associations through a universal fee provide very very good value for money for students. Under this legislation that value for money will be eroded and students will probably end up paying more. But we should not be surprised about that coming from the National Government because— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Prove it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Wayne Mapp says that I should prove it. I will easily do that. In 1999 when this issue was last debated there was a referendum at all of the university and tertiary campuses. People got to choose whether it was going to be a voluntary membership system or a compulsory membership system. Victoria University decided that it would continue to provide many of the services that the students association provided even if the students had voted for voluntary membership. It was going to do that by raising a levy to cover the cost of that. That levy was going to cost more than the students association levy because it did not think that it could provide those services as cheaply as the students association did. So it was going to cost students more to vote for voluntary membership than to keep a universal system of membership. Students would receive fewer services—the level of service they would receive would be diminished—but they would pay more for those services. That is the proof that Wayne Mapp was just asking for. I thank him for the question and I look forward to his next one because if he keeps going along those lines I am sure we could have quite a rigorous debate about it. 
Otago University estimated that it had the help of 598 volunteers in 2009 who provided over 20000 volunteer hours amongst them. All of those things are severely diminished in a voluntary membership regime. At the moment students get a pretty good deal because there is a huge amount of free labour that goes into providing the services on offer at many institutions. Yes those institutions would seek to replicate under a voluntary membership regime some of the services provided by students associations under a universal membership regime but it would cost more. Students would end up having to pay more to get less. So that is really important. I am surprised that the Government is not willing to address this issue at a time when students are already struggling. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: They’re doing that to everybody else. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We should not be surprised because as my colleague Damien O’Connor has pointed out the Government is loading up costs to everybody else. So what is loading up a few more costs on to students going to be for the National-ACT Government? Those members do not really mind and they do not really care about that. 
The tertiary institutions themselves are opposed to this legislation and submitted such a view to the select committee. Tertiary institutions recognised that students associations play a vital role not only in providing services for students but also in adding to the life of the university and in providing a student voice at very important decision-making points within the tertiary institution processes. I was at Victoria University where student representatives coordinated by the students association advocated for students’ interests at all levels of the university. Starting at a pretty basic level each individual class has a class representative who is there if a student has a difficulty with their class a problem with their lecturer or a concern about which they need some advice. Students can go to their class representatives who have been coordinated to be in those roles by the students association. They are trained by the students association in how to deal with certain issues. 
If we move up to the faculty board level again we see that student representation at that level is organised by the students association. At the academic board level student representation is provided and as we talked about in the last part all the way up to the governing level of the institution student representation is coordinated by the students association. Therefore there is a comprehensive system of student representation at tertiary institutions. The reason the students associations have a mandate to do that is that they have as their members more or less the entire student body. We know that students actually support that system of membership because they were given a choice in 1999 as to whether they wanted to continue with it and overwhelmingly they said yes they wanted to stick with that system. Overwhelmingly students said they wanted to stick with a universal system of membership. 
I think it is perfectly legitimate to say from time to time that that regime should be tested. I would have no problem with that. In fact if Heather Roy came into the House with a bill to have another referendum and to give students that choice I would probably vote in favour of it. In fact Labour is offering that choice to the Government now. If the Government wants to provide students with a choice we would happily support it. This debate would be all over very quickly if the choice was given to students to have the referendum to determine— 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s on the Table right now. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That option is on the Table and this debate would all be over if students were given that choice. Students could determine that no they do not want a universal system of membership; they want a voluntary regime. We would accept that. If they wanted by majority to continue to have a universal system of membership—as they overwhelmingly chose when last given the opportunity to do so—we would also accept that. We think that the students of the institutions should have that choice and I am very disappointed that National is voting in favour of a bill that denies students that option particularly given the heritage of that last choice. People like Tau Henare negotiated that arrangement when Tony Steel put forward the bill in 1997 or 1998 I think it was. Tau Henare was one of the pivotal players in securing that compromise that put the choice into the hands of students and there is an awful lot at stake. I think Tau Henare recognised that back then and I am disappointed that he seems to have stopped recognising that now and seems to have turned his back on the things that he was arguing in favour of when he put that amendment forward. 
Activities are provided by students associations that are vital to campus life whether it is at a polytechnic a university or a wananga. We are talking about the clubs we are talking about orientation we are talking about services like student media and we have the student newspapers and student radio. 
In fact the Minister for Tertiary Education himself who went on to make millions of dollars in commercial broadcasting started out in student radio. It was with the money from the students associations that Steven Joyce started on the ladder to making his great fortune. Yet he now wants to yank up the ladder behind him. Paula Bennett started her political career as the president of a students association. I understand that back then she claimed to be a lefty before she joined the National Party. Once again it is another example of Paula Bennett saying: “Well it worked pretty well for me”—much like the training incentive allowance—“but I’m just going to yank that opportunity away from other people. I’m going to take that away. It worked all right for me and I don’t really care about what happens to people who come along behind me.” That is the position of the National members. They are not interested in everybody else. They are not interested in the people on Struggle Street. They are not interested in the people who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are interested only in themselves and their mates. They are not interested in ordinary hard-working Kiwis. University and tertiary students are great examples of people who are working hard to further themselves and lift themselves up but this Government constantly tries to pull the rug out from under them. This is a very bad bill. It is a bad bill that robs students of many of the vital supports they have come to expect. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why are you such a communist? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Wayne Mapp has just called me a communist. In 1981 Wayne Mapp lost the selection for a Labour Party nomination to Phil Goff. He sits over there now because Labour did not want him. That is why Wayne Mapp is over there and he is still bitter and twisted that he got beaten in 1981 by Phil Goff to be the Labour Party candidate in Mt Roskill. He is all bitter and twisted and chewed up about that. I come back to the point I was raising before which is that this is a bad bill. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is legislation the Greens have opposed and will continue to oppose. I have seen it described recently as an ideological solution in search of a real-world problem and I think that basically sums it up. 
Clause 6 contains the gist of the bill. It is the essence of the bill. New section 229A in clause 6 states that a student may not be obliged to be a member of an association. That provision brings to me an immediate issue—a problem—and it is reinforced in new section 229CA which I call the free-rider provision. It states that students who are not members of an association may not be obliged to pay for services that are provided generally to the student body of the institution. That is a free-rider clause. It states that where services are provided to everybody and where people cannot be excluded from access to those services non-members—people who are not paying their way—will be able to enjoy them. 
Like many other New Zealanders and indeed other members in this House I am a member of the Automobile Association. In the event that on a wet morning my car fails to start I can phone for a nice man in a van to come and get me mobile. It would be odd if my neighbour who happened not to be a member of the Automobile Association could ring and get that same service for free. That is essentially the situation being set up here. Many services provided by students associations are not exclusive. They are available to all student members in the form of facilities cafes and orientation week activities. Any student may use those services. I would love to hear from the proponents of this bill an explanation of how it is fair that some students will pay while other students who choose not to pay will also be able to enjoy those benefits. That is not fair. It is unjust and the students associations will be weakened. 
Many students confronted with very high fees that are increasing year by year the cost of study inadequate resourcing inadequate funding for texts and so on will be confronted with a rather difficult ethical dilemma of whether they pay their students association fee to rightly and reasonably get access to that range of services or whether they choose a free ride on the back of their fellow students. Sadly we know that a number of students either through ignorance or perhaps an undeveloped or immature ethical basis for their actions will choose the latter course the free-rider course. That is unacceptable and it will undermine the strength and integrity of the associations over time. It will mean they are unable to continue to maintain the level of service. They will not have a surplus to invest in increasing the services available. Any of us who has ever been to a university as students teachers or casual observers can see the value of the associations which has been well proven over time. 
I am also very intrigued by new section 229B which states that no one may exert undue influence on a student or prospective student to join an association to cease to be a member of an association or to choose not to be a member of an association. I am really interested to know what the test for undue influence is. How does one measure or determine what undue influence is? I suspect that the students associations will work very very hard at the beginning of each academic year to capture students to encourage and persuade them to pay the money to become fully paid-up legitimate members and to enjoy the services with a clear conscience. I would love to hear an explanation from the drafter of the bill about what constitutes undue influence. 
Students can be very activist shall we say and very persuasive. They can use a wide range of means and inducements to encourage people to join particularly people who are at the beginning of their first year. I suspect that if a student is captured at the beginning of their first year they will very quickly discover the value of membership and will continue to be members of the association throughout their time as a student. What would be a reasonable limit to inducements persuasive techniques or attractions that a student body might offer to prospective members? Similarly what would be undue influence in terms of those remaining few on campus who choose not to go down that road? Kia ora. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 6 is the main part of this legislation which Labour will definitely vote against. The bill has been wrongly called the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause makes it absolutely clear that there will not be any freedom for students to choose what to do about their association membership. In fact this bill makes it compulsory for students associations to be voluntary. 
New section 229A outlaws the right for students associations to choose to be voluntary. Why does it do that? It seems to do so because there is no call on our student campuses in this country to have voluntary students association membership. If there was then there would be no need for this bill. If there was a call for students associations to be voluntary then that would be happening right now because the proponents of this bill would be able to get more than 10 percent of students on a campus at any given time to actually call for a referendum to make it so. That is what the current law provides for. It states that yes the student body can make a decision for student association membership to be voluntary just by having 10 percent of the student body ask for such a referendum to be held. 
The ACT Party has convinced the National Party to support an entirely new piece of legislation making it compulsory to be voluntary because its members on university and polytechnic campuses up and down the country cannot organise 10 percent of the student body to say that they do not want to have compulsory student membership. They cannot get that 10 percent. So why is National backing something that it cannot get even 10 percent of the student body to ask for? But it is worse than that. I sat on the Education and Science Committee in its journey around New Zealand listening to submissions. There were 4800 submissions on this bill. Ninety-eight percent of them were opposed to the bill. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No way. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The member should do the figures. Ninety-eight percent of them— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Well they’ll presumably join the union won’t they? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is about 4700 give or take a bit. Not only could the Government not get 10 percent of students at universities and polytechnics to say they wanted the associations to be voluntary but also it failed to listen when that 98 percent of submitters said “Don’t do this. It is wrong. It is backwards ideology.” It just goes to show how out of touch the Government has already become in its first term. The Government is completely and utterly out of touch with New Zealanders. The National members in the Education and Science Committee heard submission after submission saying that this is the wrong thing to do and they completely and utterly ignored them. The Government has also ignored the fact that not even 10 percent of the student body will actually get up and fight for the bill under the current law which they can do right now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with democracy? 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is what I would like to ask National members. That was a very good question from Tau Henare because he knows all about the legislation. He was the architect of the legislation that exists right now—I applaud him for that. Now he is having it ripped apart for reasons of ideology and no other reason—no other reason at all. It shows how joined at the hip National has become to ACT ideology that National is prepared to support this legislation. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh my God and you say that the same week as the marine and coastal bill. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Jo Goodhew seems to object to being called joined at the hip to ACT. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because she recognises that not only this legislation but a whole range of ACT policies are completely and utterly unpopular in the New Zealand environment. It would certainly be a very good call if Jo Goodhew recognised that. 
I ask what the problem is that we are trying to fix with the bill. What is the problem that this part of the law in particular aims to fix? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 As other members on this side of the House have said we are absolutely opposed to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will start by covering the change to insert new section 229A “Membership of students associations voluntary” in the Education Act 1989.  
This legislation is unnecessary. There is no problem that it is trying to fix. It is not in the interests of the majority of students—ordinary students who are just trying to get through their qualifications and trying to live from one week to the next. They are not interested in this legislation. They did not call for it. In fact this change—especially new section 229A—will drive up their student costs. Their tertiary costs will be driven up by this change. Their cost of living will go up even further than it already is doing. And for what reason? To satisfy the whim of a small number of ACT on Campus members. That is it. This change was not called for by thousands of students. It is not a response to many many students across the country coming forward and asking for this change. It is a response to a tiny number of students who are aligned to the ACT Party and who for some reason want to put ideology over common sense. That is all the change is about. 
New section 229A inserted by clause 6 of the bill states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” There is a very simple solution to this problem which the Education and Science Committee seemed to be looking at until the very persuasive Mrs Roy returned to the select committee. That solution is simply to give students clearer options for opting out of a students association. That would solve the problem. If that really is the problem that option would solve it. 
I think we really see what the bill is all about when we look at the changes to clause 6 that were made by the select committee. I am particularly interested in the change to insert new section 229B which refers to undue influence in the Act. I think the changes made by the select committee to new section 229 are very good. They are appropriate because they balance the issue of undue influence by the multiple parties that might be involved in influencing someone to become or not become a member of a students association. The original wording of new section 229 was all about how students associations—those nasty evil horrible students associations—were not allowed to exert undue influence on any student. That is what this bill is all about. It comes from an ideological position that students associations are bad: that they are a bad thing that they exert pressure on students to become members of students associations and that Parliament should be doing something to undermine students associations and get rid of them. 
The change made by the select committee I think is appropriate and balances things out. The new wording states that prospective students cannot have influence exerted on them to become members of a students association but nor can they have undue influence exerted on them to not become members or to leave a students association. That change appropriately reflects the fact that there is a range of opinions out there for students or institutions. There is an important amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to include institutions in new section 229B. Institutions may also be guilty of exerting undue influence either to get students into students associations or to keep them out depending on the institution’s philosophy towards students associations. 
I can absolutely understand why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join the students association. It gives the institution a point of contact with which to relate to students. It is much easier for institutions if they have a strong students association not only to provide the many many services that students associations provide but also because the institutions themselves have acknowledged that they will have to pick up those services if the students associations are weakened. That is one reason why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join a students association but I think it is absolutely appropriate that that amendment should be included to ensure that institutions cannot influence a student to go into a students association or out of a students association or encourage them not to join a students association. I appreciate the fact that the select committee has looked at the ridiculous original— 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill which is before us in the Committee tonight is an attack on vulnerable students on quality education and on fairness. It is all being done in the name of the Government pandering to ACT Party ideology.  
I address clause 6 because it is the main part of the bill and because as members know we fundamentally oppose this part of the bill which undermines the ability of student representation to organise and provide invaluable services for students and to organise to do good in the wider community. 
I have not spoken in this debate until now. It has been many a year since I was a student. 
David Shearer 
: Not that many. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It has been a few years. I was not active in student politics at university. I attended the odd protest but my activism happened in other forums. But I was a beneficiary of student services and good student organisation. I will talk about good student organisation and the value it can bring to a community. I will talk about the organisation I have observed amongst our student organisation in Dunedin in recent weeks following the Christchurch earthquake. They have played a critical role in our wider community in organising to do their best to bring relief to the people of Christchurch. If the students had not had an effective student organisation that action simply would not have happened. 
I will give just a couple of examples. A thing called the “Christchurch Embassy” was set up in Dunedin the week after the earthquake. It was essentially based at the Dunedin Railway Station to provide a place for people fleeing from Christchurch to go and a central point to receive services. It was set up by a group within Dunedin that included student organisations. They sat around the table right from the very beginning and initiated that really important service. Those students also organised the assembling and sending of 18000 packed lunches to Christchurch. They organised and sent teams of people to Christchurch. That action would not have happened without the good organisation that they provide. 
That is just one example of the benefit that student organisations can bring to the wider community. As I said I was a beneficiary of the student organisation when I went to university. I used the services that were made possible by it and I happily paid those dues. Under clause 6 which I think goes to the real heart of this bill this Government will force all those students associations to operate an opt-in system of membership rather than allow those students to choose between opt-in and opt-out systems through referenda as is the case under the current legislation. 
It is funny that a bill taking away so much choice has come from National and the ACT Party which normally love to throw around rhetoric about the nanny State. In fact in continuing to push this legislation through the House they have ignored the 98 percent of submissions to the Education and Science Committee that were against voluntary student membership. 
We know that students do not want this change. It is blind ideology. Students associations were open to make opting out of membership easier and fully refundable. They were open to the option of mandated 5-yearly referendums on association membership. These compromises are being put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 191 which would amend this clause and would make a real difference. My colleague Grant Robertson and other colleagues have appealed to National members to see reason on this bill and vote for these amendments. 
The important services provided by students associations include things— 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Opposition members have made a number of claims that are just not technically correct. They have also put forward a large number of amendments to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is the substantive part of the bill and it does warrant some comment and in fact some straightening out of some of the propositions that have been made and the claims that have been put forward. So far I think during every single clause that has been debated—and we are on to clause 6—members of the Opposition have stood up and said that that was the clause that will be the end of student representation. Every single clause apparently is the important one that will be the end of student representation. But let me say that a number of things do need to be addressed. 
Addressing the comments of Clare Curran who has just sat down I find it quite sad that she said the only reason that good is done in the student community is that students associations exist. Well I say to the Opposition that one does not need laws or compulsion to do good in the community. The example that was used the Student Volunteer Army in Christchurch was not in fact organised by the students associations. They had a part to play but in fact it was organised by one National Party supporter who set up a Facebook page. Students saw that page and out of the goodness of their hearts went to help in their local community. It was nothing to do with the fact that those people had to belong to a students association. 
The claim was made by Grant Robertson I think that students have been successful only because of students associations. That claim will come as news to most students who would say their success is due to their own hard work not to the existence of a students association. 
Grant Robertson 
: What happens when things go wrong? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Talking about things that go wrong let us look at the referendum provision that exists in the current law. We have had that provision in place for 10 years and the sponsor of that particular provision had a conversation with me to say that the reason he now does not support it is that it has not worked. It has not worked in terms of the criticism we have had in this debate because students cannot get the 10 percent required. There is no way they will get support from students when they put forward referenda provisions in the middle of exams. That has been done in countless places. Waikato is probably the best example where referenda are routinely put forward in the middle of exams when students are quite rightly focusing on the work they are there to do. 
The other thing that has not worked is the opt-out provision. Members opposite say we should just enhance the opt-out provision. The opt-out provision has not worked because the students associations want that money; they want the guaranteed income. The opt-out system has not worked because the students associations have made students jump through hoops to do it and they give up in frustration. They give up in frustration. 
Sue Moroney 
: So fix that! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: We are not fixing that because then other loopholes will be found. There should not be an opt-out provision. 
The financial impropriety—which members opposite have not mentioned once in the whole debate so far and which warrants comment—has been the result of the guaranteed income that students associations have because of compulsory student membership. The financial impropriety is a result of the lack of transparency and the poor accountability. If members opposite took a moment to flick past new section 229A as set out in clause 6 they would find that the lack of transparency and poor accountability are being addressed in this bill and that is extraordinarily important. The fact that Labour members are prepared to compromise on so many parts of this particular clause—and we need just to quickly look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper to see that—shows how fearful they are of losing control of the campuses. 
Chris Hipkins and a number of other members talked about the overwhelming number of submissions that were opposed to the bill during the select committee process. Let us be very clear about how those submissions were formatted and put forward to the Education and Science Committee. Out of the 4800 submissions 300 were substantive submissions. The rest—the other 4500 submissions—were in A4 form. Those 4500 submissions effectively made up a petition. They were not substantive submissions; they were all exactly identical. I have had students tell me that at many university campuses tables were set up in front of the cafeteria and students were not let through until they signed one of those forms which were then put forward as substantive submissions. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh what rubbish! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Sue Moroney can say until she is blue in the face that that is not true but I can tell the member that a lot of students have told me that that is exactly how those forms were collected. 
David Clendon from the Green Party stood up and gave the most to-the-point and genuine speech I have heard tonight. He talked about fairness. This bill is exactly about fairness. This bill is about fairness for students who should not be compelled to join a students association in order to study. They cannot do one without the other and this bill is about fairness to students. It allows them the choice to decide for themselves whether they pay a fee and belong to a students organisation. It allows them to study and move ahead with their lives. A member asked what the problem was that we are trying to fix—I think it might have been Sue Moroney. The problem we are trying to fix is that students are currently the only group in our society who are forced to join an organisation in order to be able to do what they are there to do. The fairness aspect is being fixed and I look forward to this debate continuing with some honesty in the debating points. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a call in this debate. We are on clause 6. I would like to respond to the member Heather Roy’s comments with the honesty she requested. 
My comments essentially go like this. Clause 6 which contains all of the substantive parts of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill reflects the fact that this bill is simply the result of flawed tactics on the part of National. National members have now found themselves backed into a corner by a minority party that is pursuing this bill on the basis—let me give the member credit—of some principled position without considering however the practical outcomes of the bill. That is a travesty of this House’s purpose. Of course bills should be brought here on the basis of principle and they should be submitted to a select committee to our democratic process for improvement. That is what happened with this bill. But for the National members of the Education and Science Committee to then suddenly fold their arms and say they would not have any more to do with the arguments put up by submitters is a fault and an inadequacy on the part of tacticians in National. 
Let me explain that a bit further. Clause 6 says membership of students associations should be voluntary. If Heather Roy indeed brought this bill to the House on the basis of the neo-liberal principles on which the ACT Party hangs its hat then all credit to her. But for National then to concur with legislation that is going to ruin part of student life in New Zealand and part of the life of tertiary institutions is simply wrong. It means there has been insufficient thought applied to this legislation by National. Once National members worked themselves into this position of not seeking improvements or amendments to the bill they persisted in sitting as they are now—each of them to a person with their heads down not looking and not engaging—because they know that that position is a failure on their part. They are standing up for legislation that will wreak havoc and cause something that significantly contributes to tertiary education in this country to grind to a halt. 
It is a nonsense to say that clause 6—and I am looking at the new section 229A which states that membership of students associations is to be voluntary—will benefit the student population the tertiary experience or even the institutions in any way. Besides that there were almost no submitters in favour of this legislation. Why has National capitulated in this way on an imperfect bill that will have practical and pragmatic outcomes that are destructive? Why would it back itself into that position? Why have its members still not had the courage to say—not one of those members has said—why they have changed their position why they have not sought improvements or why they have not sought amendments to the bits they might not agree with? If there are problems I say to Mrs Roy with the way students associations have operated if there are problems in that people have found it difficult at times to get out of a students association then why not simply address those issues? Why cause this destruction? 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating two members of the ACT Party on remaining true to their neo-liberal origins which is something that the other three members have not done—or at least two and a half of them have not. But as is the case with the ACT Party when it does remain true to its neo-liberal origins and becomes consistent it is also within the bounds of possibility that it is consistently wrong. 
Society ranges itself variously either collectively or individually. One can call it user-pays or payer-uses; one can call it public sector or private sector. All economies are mixed—all economies are mixed—and they always will be. It is always better to have a payer-uses society to deliver health services for example and a user-pays society to deliver whatever it might be—fruit and vegetable services. It is always going to be mixed. Students associations themselves are economies that are mixed. They provide their pastoral services their welfare services and most but not all of their health services on a payer-uses model. On the other hand for example advertising in their radio or print media is on a user-pays model and they charge like wounded bulls. So students associations have a mixture of ways in which they build their revenue base. 
The reason they have a mixture is that it is sometimes more efficient to use user-pays and it is sometimes more efficient to have payer-uses. If one gets rid of payer-uses one ends up with less efficiency and lower delivery of some things that students have erstwhile considered important including welfare pastoral or health services. Of course some of the services such as agitation advocacy or whatever also come from student fees and that may be something that the ACT Party members would like to raise in support of their position. 
But the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of the revenue collected from students for students associations is spent collectively on things that students in general over the years have found useful. How do I know this? Well because for 20 years I have been the member for Dunedin North. My electorate office is next door to the Captain Cook Tavern. Not a week in the academic year goes by without students coming to my office to see me and my staff over something and that has been going on for 20 years. There are now 19000 of them washing through the place every 3 or 4 years. It is like a transit camp. In that time in those two decades not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of this legislation—not one. 
Not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and yet we say we are a democracy. We say we are a democracy we say the majority are entitled to have the sway except in this instance where we have a 3.5 percent party having its way with a party that is supposed to be principled to overturn something that no student in my electorate in over 20 years has ever asked for. That is outrageous. It is outrageous because ACT members say they know best but they are not part of this debate. They are not at university as far as I am aware. I was at university last year and I had to pay student fees to Victoria University and I did not use the services. That is what happens with payer-uses. Sometimes I do not use the health services in this country either even though I am paying tax. It is still the most efficient way to run those services. Yet ideology is being rammed through and is skewering common sense. 
As my colleague Maryan Street pointed out National members sit there and say diddly-squat. They know in their hearts that it is a bit awkward. They know in their hearts that back at their polytechs and especially at their universities they will have to face some difficult questions. They know there will be destruction of services but they sit there because somewhere at some stage there needed to be some trade-off to make sure that that coalition partner of this ill-begotten Government would get its jollies over this legislation. That is not a good way to run a country. It is not principled it is not called for it is not democratic and it is not popular. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will start by addressing one or two of the things that Heather Roy mentioned when she made her addresses before. She said first of all that one does not have to have a students association in order to be effective. She gave the example of the Christchurch earthquake. I am not sure whether that was true; I seem to think that the students associations had a greater role than she talked about. But somehow she says students do not need a students association in order to be mobilised and effective. If that is the case I ask Heather Roy why a student body cannot mobilise 10 percent of students and come up with the numbers needed to force through a referendum. Why is that not possible? On the one hand it does not seem that students need to have a students association to be effective but on the other hand a student body can never be effective enough to get that requisite 10 percent. 
Heather Roy also talked about the idea that a students association—or a student union as the ACT Party prefers to call it—is one of the only organisations left in this country that is compulsory and for which one has to pay a compulsory fee. I think this is a wrong characterisation of what a students association is. David Caygill and his son made an extremely good presentation to the Education and Science Committee on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill in which they argued that this fee is more akin to a tax than a union fee. In the same sense that people who belong to for example a council pay their rates students pay for things that they may not use but they pay for the sake of the greater good. The fee is compulsory only if students do not want to force a referendum through but they are paying for something that people overwhelmingly get great benefit from. I think that is the crux of the argument regarding clause 6. 
I come back to the point that Heather Roy talked disparagingly about Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Papers 190 and 191 and his other amendments. But many of those amendments were an attempt by members on this side of the Chamber to come to some sort of compromise so that this bill would be palatable legislation that might have some endurance out there rather than come November 26 be targeted for elimination. This bill could have actually been better legislation which might have had the agreement of all sides of the Committee. 
Heather Roy is absolutely wrong—and here are the facts. If this legislation is passed the students associations will wither considerably or disappear. That is a fact; that is based on evidence. It is based on the experience of Australia. What happened there? Students association membership dropped horrendously. Let me give members the statistics that came from the Australian students associations representatives of which actually came before the select committee by phone. They said the associations had effectively collapsed or had drastically reduced their services and implemented user-pays in many areas which had disadvantaged many of the students particularly those from low socio-economic areas. Tertiary institutions there have taken over services and assets previously owned by students. Here is the other thing that occurred when that happened: tertiary institutions began to charge levies for reduced services—more money than the students were paying to begin with. 
For most of the students associations—and I look at the Unitec one in particular—we are looking at paying about $120 a year. Now $120 is a substantial amount of money for many students but the services that students get from that are way beyond what a tertiary institution would be able to provide. The secret is that the students associations have an army of volunteers. All of that will disappear when this legislation makes its way through Parliament. 
I refer back to Grant Robertson’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add to new section 229A a requirement to hold a nationwide referendum. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and specifically to clause 6. I do so for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the fact that I have worked at a university and I know what a university student union does and I have come to value it greatly. 
The second reason I want to speak on this bill is that I went to the Eastern Institute of Technology which is the Hawke’s Bay polytech and spoke to the students about this issue. I spoke to the students about new section 229A inserted by clause 6 which states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” Do members know what those students said to me? They said that their student union would cease to exist if this bill goes through. The level of pastoral care that the student union provides is immense. 
To me it is like an insurance policy. Canterbury aside I do not know anyone whose house has been burnt down but every person I know who owns a house has insurance. That is what a student union is. The vast majority of students do not use the student union and do not require the pastoral care but others do. Making membership voluntary will destroy the lives of students. 
We have to remember that a lot of students are leaving home for the first time. They are facing a whole lot of pressures that they would not normally face and have not faced before. They will face those pressures and now that those members are taking away that safety net and that pastoral care these students will fail. The Government measures institutions on how many students pass. This change will ruin those statistics. 
The other thing I would like to talk about is new section 229C which deals with complaints. Section 229C(1) states: “A student or prospective student who on reasonable grounds considers that any person has exerted undue influence … may lodge a complaint with the council of the institution.” Section 229C talks about that whole process and about the university council. Anyone who knows about a university council or a polytech council will know the amount of work those people have to go through. It is an immense amount of work. It is like being a member of a board. These are highly skilled people who are time-constrained. They are sitting on a university or polytech council basically out of the goodness of their hearts but also because they believe in the value of the institution. You tie up a university council with numerous complaints of this nature and I will tell you what: institutions will lose— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was wondering when your being brought into the debate by the new member might be recognised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite right. 
Hon Member 
: He’s not a junior member any more. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am on my feet. The member will be silent. The point of order is quite correct. The member should not bring the Chair into the debate. 
STUART NASH 
: Institutions will lose council members. The council members who sit on the boards of polytechs and universities will say they cannot be bothered with it. They came to help with the governance of that university or polytech yet they are spending 50 percent of their time—this is what the bill says—dealing with complaints from students. That is not what a university or a polytech council is for. Yet a huge chunk of this bill section 229C “Complaints” relates to how councils will have to hear complaints from students who believe on reasonable grounds that a person has exerted undue influence. That is a waste of time. 
This bill takes away any level of pastoral care that students provide to their peers and it also takes away I believe the ability of very good people to sit on university and polytech councils. This complaints process is quite onerous. I think this complaints process under section 229C will dissuade students from complaining. In fact this bill will become a bit of a nothing. Have members read what students have to go through? They have to lodge a written complaint on reasonable grounds. It has to go to a university board which sits about once a month. There will be a whole stack of maybe 10 12 or 20 complaints. Then the board has to make a decision. Every student who lodges a complaint has the ability to be represented. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to new section 229A regarding a nationwide referendum in 2011 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles of the bill. I refer the member to Standing Order 292. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This amendment was lodged and has been on the Table for some time. It does not do anything to the fundamental purpose of the bill. It simply adds to the clause. I find it incomprehensible that my amendment could be ruled out of order. It was accepted by the Clerk some time ago and has sat on the Table for some time within the Supplementary Order Paper. I simply do not understand at all how a ruling like that could be made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I say to the member that firstly just because his amendment has been tabled it does not mean to say it has been accepted. As to the fact that the amendment has sat on the Table all this time and the member has not had any report back on it there is no requirement for that. The process of the Committee is that amendments are put on the Table and when they are put before the Committee the Chairperson makes the decision to accept them or reject them. So let us deal with the process—there is no process other than that and there never has been and I doubt that we will ever see a change in the process. 
The second element is that it is the judgment of the Chair on the advice of the Clerk that the amendment is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. That is the ruling and I regret to advise the member that there is no appeal authority on this. There is no other jurisdiction and correspondence will not be entered into. That is the end of the matter. The amendment is ruled out of order. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What role does precedent play in a decision such as this? I refer you particularly to an almost identical bill to the one that we are currently debating which was voted on in this Parliament in either 1997 or 1998. The original bill was almost identical and an amendment almost identical to Mr Robertson’s amendment was accepted by the then Chairperson. I was not here at the time so I was not involved. But there is a precedent that that amendment was deemed to be within the scope of the bill. The ruling you have made is inconsistent with that ruling so I am asking you what role precedent plays in decisions such as yours to make such a ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well there are two things. I say to the member that as a wiser man than me the Rt Hon David Lange said one time consistency is the last refuge of a fool. But having said that the point is that this is a new bill a new day and I have made the ruling. I have made the ruling that the amendment is out of order and I am not going to go back to it. The member’s point of order is seeking to challenge that ruling. The matter is closed. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Gareth Hughes to new section 229A in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment in the name of Grant Robertson is an amendment to clause 6 to insert a new section 229AB regarding a mandated referendum as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191. This amendment is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles of the bill. I refer the member to Standing Order 292. Grant Robertson’s amendment to insert a new section 229AB regarding a student-initiated referendum as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles of the bill and I again refer the member to Standing Order 292. Gareth Hughes’ amendment to insert a new section 229AB regarding a student referendum as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the principles of the bill according to Standing Order 292. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit section 229B and substitute the following section: 
229BUndue influence 
(1)A person must not exert undue influence on any student or prospective student with intent to make that student or prospective student— 
(a)become or remain a member of a students association; or 
(b)cease to be a member of a students association; or 
(c)not become a member of a students association. 
(2)Undue influence does not include advertising or promotional offers. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to sections 229B and 229C in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to section 229C the following subsections: 
(8)The Council must either hold a complaint hearing or reject the complaint within 2 weeks of a complaint having been received. 
(9)The Council must uphold reject or otherwise decide on the complaint within 2 weeks of holding the complaints hearing. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to new section 229CA(2) and (3) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add to section 229CA(3)(b) “including the provision of academic-related services or activities that are available to all students”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of David Clendon to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Gareth Hughes to section 229CA in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to section 229CA(4) in clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to add new section 229CA(9) and (10) to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to add new section 229CA(9) to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to add a new subsection (9) to new section 229CA is out of order as being the same in substance as the amendment that has been considered by the Committee on Supplementary Order Paper 191. Grant Robertson’s amendment to add new section 229CB as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 190 is out of order as a financial veto has been lodged. The amendment is out of order and no question can be put. The amendment in the name of Gareth Hughes to insert a new section 229CB regarding membership fees as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 is out of order as well as a financial veto certificate has been lodged. The question on this amendment therefore cannot be put. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to add new sections 229CB and 229CC to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to add the following section: 
229CCRepresentation 
(1)The tertiary institution must provide for representation and advocacy of students in an autonomous manner. 
(2)No person including any tertiary institution may act in any way that conflicts with the spirit and intent of this section. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 10.02 p.m.