Volume 674 Week 80 - Wednesday 3 August 2011 
Volume 674 Week 80 - Wednesday 3 August 2011 
[Volume:674;Page:20241] 
Wednesday 3 August 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Syria—Shooting of Demonstrators 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That this House condemn the shooting of peaceful demonstrators in Hama and other Syrian cities and call upon the Syrian Government to enter into a serious national dialogue to chart a transition to democratic government. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Leave to Introduce 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Care of Children Law Reform Bill—a member’s bill in my name—and to have it set down for first reading as member’s order of the day No. 1. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Progress 
1. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made in getting its finances in order reducing debt and returning to budget surplus sooner? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has made significant progress after inheriting ever-increasing Government debt. In fact across three Budgets we have achieved $45 billion of savings for the period up to 2015 compared with the spending track we inherited from the previous Government. The savings we made in Budget 2011 alone mean that we will borrow about $10 billion less over the next 4 years than we otherwise would have. This is particularly important in light of the growing volatility of international financial markets. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the Government’s decisions to control debt and spending keep Crown debt to manageable levels? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made balanced decisions about this by being willing to incur some debt in supporting the economy through the recession and in financing the Christchurch earthquake recovery. However we do need to show a path back to surplus. Crown debt is now expected to peak at 29.6 percent of GDP and fall from about 2015 onwards. We will return to a healthy Budget surplus by 2014-15 at the latest. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How did the latest fiscal and debt forecast compare with the forecast the Government inherited in 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government inherited a dismal forecast in 2008. Treasury’s December 2008 update showed permanent deficits. Net Government debt based on Labour’s policies was forecast to grow to 50 percent of GDP by 2023 and keep rising after that. That would be a recipe for disaster in the current global environment where financial markets are very touchy about lending to highly indebted small countries. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What policies would put New Zealand’s relatively strong economic and fiscal position at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a very good question. The kinds of policies that would do that would be promises of large extra Government spending that had to be financed by increasing taxes and borrowing more money which I gather is what our political opponents are proposing. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: How much longer would it take New Zealand to return to surplus if New Zealand had a tax-free threshold of $5000 removed GST from fruit and vegetables and continued the spending track of 2005-08; or would New Zealand return to surplus ever? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Under those assumptions I could hazard a guess and I think it would probably take something like another 5 or 6 years to get back to surplus. But calculations show that even with the package recently released by the Labour Party that would mean it would be borrowing about an extra $18 billion as a result of that big— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy and he certainly does not have responsibility for policies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point perfectly fairly. The Minister should not continue on the line of the last part of that answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a table of the tax switch proposed by Labour showing that we reduce debt by another $7.7 billion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of this document just for the House to— 
Hon David Parker 
: It was prepared by Business and Economic Research Ltd and the Labour Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that Government spending will not absorb 97 percent of nominal GDP growth over the next 3 years as it has done over the past 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a good question. We have taken two different sorts of approaches. One has been to constrain Government spending so that it grows significantly slower than expected GDP growth. The other has been to put in place policies such as significant tax change to help to encourage the growth of the economy so that GDP rises faster. 
Living Standards—Inequality 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by the accuracy of his answers to Oral Question No 1 in the House yesterday; if not in what respect were his answers inaccurate? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and in particular I stand by my statement that the distribution of income in New Zealand is more even now than at any time under the previous Labour Government. The assertion is based on actual data which is the very latest data available and on very rigorous analysis of that data—something that I know is a foreign concept to Labour. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister claim that the gap in incomes had widened under Labour when the report he quoted states precisely the opposite? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because the member is wrong. If one looks at the report and takes for instance the 80:20 ratio as a measure one sees that the report shows that inequality increased from 1998 to 2001 and increased again from 2001 to 2004. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table page 2 of the report entitled  
Household incomes in New Zealand 
 which states that inequality declined from 2001 to 2010 precisely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the report that he quoted from yesterday attribute the decline in inequality to Labour’s Working for Families package which he described as “communism by stealth” and does he regret that comment given that the report’s finding was that Working for Families had halved child poverty rates for those in working families? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not regret those comments and there were a number of factors. The reason for my comment was that the original design of Working for Families actually showed a situation where people could lose over 100 percent of any income they earned. If that is not communism by stealth I do not know what is. There were a number of factors in the report that showed why inequality changed. 
Chris Tremain 
: What was the distributional effect of the Budget 2010 tax package? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Good question. Treasury did some analysis of the distributional effects of the whole tax package including the changes to property tax rules and the closing of loopholes around Working for Families and other income assistance. The analysis was again based on actual data from the household economic survey. It showed that the impact of the whole tax package was effectively distributionally neutral. In other words it had almost the same impact on different household income groups. That is because although higher income earners received larger income tax reductions they also bore most of the impact of the tax base broadening measures. In the end the two of these cancelled out each other. If members are interested they should look at the Treasury analysis. We do not make things up; we actually have Treasury do the work. Here it shows the effective distribution of the full tax package. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he claimed credit for the reduction of inequality in New Zealand yesterday was he aware that the figures that he was relying on in the household income survey contained all of Labour’s progressive income tax cuts in 2008 but none of the highly regressive tax changes of 2010 which gave him as Prime Minister over $1000 a week but somebody on the median wage in my electorate just $13? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: On so many fronts the member is factually incorrect. It would be useful if he listened to the last answer which shows that the Treasury analysis states that the entire tax package was effectively distributionally neutral. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: With the increase over the last year in the wealth of the top 150 rich individuals in New Zealand by 20 percent or $7 billion and the credible reports from a whole range of social agencies indicating a very steep increase in people relying on food packages has the gap between rich and poor widened or narrowed in New Zealand in the last year? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is impossible to know that at this point but we will know next year when the Ministry of Social Development produces its report. But if Treasury’s analysis is correct then the income tax package will be effectively distributionally neutral. There are as the member probably knows if he has looked at the report many factors that go into it and at this stage it would be far too early to tell. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why according to the household income report is wealth concentrated in a few hands in New Zealand—with 10 percent possessing 50 percent of the country’s wealth—more than in the United Kingdom or in Australia and is it the case that the richest people benefit from the absence of a capital gains tax in this country but not in those other two countries? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would be useful if the member read out what was actually in the report. I will quote it for him. It states: “NZ’s wealth inequality is not unusual for OECD countries.” In fact it is lower for example— 
Hon David Parker 
: But it’s getting worse. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —no it is not—than in Sweden where the top decile holds 58 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the section of the household income survey that shows that the top 10 percent in New Zealand owns 50 percent of the wealth but in Australia and the United Kingdom it is only 45 percent in each case. 
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. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that when we have a significant proportion of children in our country living in poverty who struggle to get food and shoes to go to school spending money to get those kids out of poverty should not be seen as a cost but should be seen as a social investment? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and that is why the Government spends an awful lot of money in that area. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Were the statistics produced by Statistics New Zealand yesterday that showed that wages and salaries had gone up by 1.9 percent when inflation was running at 5.3 percent accurate? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is mixing a number of different factors. He is looking at the Labour Cost Index which as I said yesterday—and I am happy to take the member through it again—is a static like-for-like comparison. It does not look at all the factors that go into wages. If one looks at all of those factors—that is the quarterly employment survey—one sees that in 2001 the then Labour Government changed the law to tell every pensioner in New Zealand— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question as you will recall was very straightforward: were the figures produced by Statistics New Zealand yesterday accurate? There is a clear answer to that. I do not need a prolonged explanation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and there will be no comments from anyone. The House is too noisy altogether today. The member cannot expect the Prime Minister to answer the question exactly the way he wants. The Prime Minister was giving a very detailed answer to the question. He was not attacking anyone politically. He was giving informative information for the House and I believe that he was not departing from the Standing Orders at all. I invite the Prime Minister to finish his answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To just recap that point Statistics New Zealand itself says that the quarterly employment survey is the best indicator for what is taking place in terms of wage growth. If one looks at it one sees that that was the assumption adopted by Labour when it changed the law in 2001 to say that the survey would be the basis for New Zealand superannuation. If the member wants to reject it he needs to go back and apologise to the New Zealand pensioners who had their entire pension for the period of time that Labour was in office based off it. Now if one looks at— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister whether or not figures produced by one of his departments are accurate. I have not heard an answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is actually explaining. It is not often that the House actually gets a detailed answer of some quality. The Prime Minister is—[ 
Interruption 
] Unless some members want to leave this House they will desist immediately. I say to the honourable shadow Leader of the House that his interjections have been inept today. The member asked a question about a couple of statistics. The Prime Minister was explaining why he believed that those statistics were not accurate measurements of what he believed the member was asking about. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the House that I am on my feet. If someone wants to leave then they will very soon—very soon. I believe that the House ought to value answers where there is no attempt to attack the questioner. The Prime Minister was simply giving valuable information to the House and I think that is something that should be valued. I think the Prime Minister’s answer has been longish and I think we should perhaps go on to the next supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to review the tape and the comment you just made to think about whether it is your role to comment both positively about the Government and negatively— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. The member may review the tapes as well to see how inept his interjections have been today. I should have stopped him earlier because other members of the House asked questions and they deserved to hear answers. That member was making it very difficult for them to hear the answers to the questions they had asked. They have a right to hear those answers. I have heard sufficient. There will be further supplementary questions. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think with respect that Mr Mallard’s point is that—and I do not impute any improper motive to the Speaker—to editorialise whether an answer is valuable for the House is not the role of the Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to do this every day as members—normally Opposition members—seek my assistance to get answers from Ministers or to stop Ministers from abusing the questions asked. Every day I have to make judgments about the questions asked and the answers given and the House has actually benefited enormously from most of those judgments. I do not pretend I get them all right. The member may recollect one of his own questions from yesterday. I stopped the Minister of Finance because I believed the Minister was not fairly answering a very fair question that had been asked. I was listening very carefully to the answer and I would have stopped the Prime Minister had he sought to play politics with the question. He gave what he believed was a genuine answer to the question. As Speaker I support attempts to give genuine answers to questions. I cannot support members if they wish to turn questions into political games. I cannot support them in getting political answers but for genuine answers I can. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise this is a difficult area and I do not want to challenge you as the Chair of this meeting or your authority. But I do want to raise a point that was referred to by the Hon Trevor Mallard and that was the reference you made to his interjections. I have sat here and listened and I concur with you on this: for a number of interjections that he made you could have with good grounds challenged and called him to account immediately at the time. I would have supported you 100 percent on that but in the interests of the flow of the House you let them go and I thought that that was your call. The point I make to you is that once you have decided to let the matter go I do not think it is appropriate for you to come back and make reference to it again later. The decision was made; you let it go. It is a little bit like the referee on the football field. If there is a penalty and the referee has not blown the whistle then they cannot come back some time later blow the whistle and say: “I am sorry I should have penalised you back here.” I think your role is to ping him at the time but if you do not then I think he has got a free run at that point. That is my point. I do not think it is right for you to then come back and make some other comments about it. You made your judgment you let it go and that is the end of it. I think that is the point Mr Mallard was making about the review of the tape. I just want you to think about that again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the member’s point is made in good faith. The dilemma I have as Speaker is that were I to intervene all the time I would disrupt the House too much yet if I let it go totally it can get into an unfair situation. That is why at times I do intervene. Today I thought the provocation though was pretty extreme. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually thought you were playing the advantage rule for the Prime Minister there. On the question you said that during the answer the Prime Minister was not attacking the Opposition. In fact he was saying that the member should apologise so he was actually directly criticising the Leader of the Opposition who was asking the question. It was a pretty straight question. You were right; he was giving a good answer. But then he did start to attack the Leader of the Opposition during his answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly fair point. At that point I probably should have stopped the Prime Minister. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was originally addressed to the Prime Minister. There has been some discussion between my office and the Clerk today. The question I have and which I would ask your direction on is that this question is directly about the activities of the Prime Minister’s staff—the staff working in the Prime Minister’s department. Of course the Government has the right to move questions around but is there any limit to the moving around of questions when this question directly relates to the activities of the Prime Minister’s staff and the Government has moved it away from the Prime Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The staff are the responsibility of Ministerial Services and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is the appropriate Minister to answer this question. I think it is not unreasonable for that to be shifted. I invite the member to ask his question. 
Election Debate—Correspondence Between Ministerial Services and Leader of the Opposition 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Have any of his staff corresponded with the Leader of the Opposition or his staff regarding a 3 News election debate involving all the minor party leaders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) 
: 
 Yes one staff member provided the Labour leader’s office with copies of letters sent to media organisations about campaign debates. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Were there other verbal communications between his staff—any ministerial staff but in particular the Prime Minister’s office staff—and the Leader of the Opposition’s staff regarding this debate; if so what was the content of those communications? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Prime Minister. 
Hon Simon Power 
: No the Rt Hon Minister of Ministerial Services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is just a courtesy. I could say the Rt Hon John Key. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not aware of all of the communications between my staff but in terms of ministerial staff acting in a ministerial capacity to the best of my knowledge there were none. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he consider it acceptable that his staff—that is ministerial staff—were involved in working to essentially jack up a presidential-style political debate that suits the big parties in Parliament which is at the expense of our democracy and our MMP system? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not believe that to be an accurate description. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that there was always going to be a head-to-head debate on TV3 between the Prime Minister and Phil Goff why is the Government so scared of a debate that would involve— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe I need the Acting Leader of the House’s assistance on this. That question is quite out of order. This question relates only to the grounds that the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services can be questioned on including the actions of the staff. The leader of a political party cannot be questioned during question time in the House on why the leader of a political party may or may not have a view about leaders’ debates. I will give Dr Russel Norman a further opportunity to reword the question. I do not want to deprive him of his supplementary question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he received any advice from his staff as to the fact that there was always going to be a TV3 debate that involved Mr Key and Mr Goff; and why did the staff provide him with advice that he should not engage in a debate that involved all political party leaders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In terms of the first bit yes I am aware there will be head-to-head debate with the Leader of the Opposition; in terms of the latter point the member’s assertion is incorrect. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he get advice from his staff that it is better to appear on lightweight shows like  
Letterman 
 or Tony Veitch’s rather than— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I understand it this matter is a question to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. The question that has just been put by the leader of the Green Party would not fit within the ambit of that Minister’s responsibilities. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is a question on advice that the Minister receives and the nature of that advice. That could apply equally to the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that the point made by the Acting Leader of the House is valid. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services did not appear on any of those shows as far as I am aware so the member cannot pose a question that way. He is not questioning the Prime Minister; he is questioning the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think if the question were rephrased as “Did the ministerial staff give any Minister—”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. The member gave me a probably deserved lecture about me perhaps making commentary that I should not be making and now under a point of order the shadow Leader of the House has made commentary that perhaps he should not be making either. Maybe we should score it one all but we will not carry on down that track. I will give Dr Russel Norman a further chance to reword that supplementary question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did ministerial staff provide any Ministers with advice that it is better to appear on lightweight shows like  
Letterman 
 and Tony Veitch’s rather than on  
Morning Report 
  
Campbell Live 
 and an all-party leaders’ debate where they may face tough questioning? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No to the best of my knowledge although if one were to look at the appearance on  
Letterman 
 one would see that I did that in my capacity as Minister of Tourism given that there were millions of people watching that show. In my opinion that was a good thing to do. 
Children Welfare—Multiparty Approach 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding a bipartisan approach to children’s welfare in New Zealand that “It’s tricky because ultimately it’s about spending decisions across a whole lot of different areas you need to consider”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he again ruling out a cross-party approach to children’s policy in New Zealand as he did in November 2009? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It depends on what the member means by that. If the member is asking whether different political parties in Parliament can work together to try to tackle issues like child abuse and the like then I think Parliament has a role for that and political parties should try to work together. If I were to characterise the mood of Parliament I would say there is a universal view that all parliamentarians in all political parties want to work to address that issue. But I think we also need to be realistic and say that political parties have a different approach to different issues. There would be many areas where Labour would simply not agree with National in terms of its approach to this area and vice versa and to pretend otherwise would actually be an inaccurate way of portraying that. We are far better to have what will happen on 26 November—it is called a general election—and put our policies to the people of New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he aware that a significant number of major organisations working with children in New Zealand are asking for a cross-party approach to children’s policy—that is that the parties in this House sit down and work together on what we ought to be doing for children in New Zealand; if so would he not at least sit down with other parties in this House to see what agreement there could be on a future pathway and what could be achieved? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am aware of other organisations calling for that. Secondly I think the green paper process actually allows different stakeholders and interested parties to come together to debate those issues. Thirdly I refer the member to the letter that she wrote to me on 28 July. In paragraph 3 of the letter it goes on to say in relation to cross-party support “It would require genuine involvement—shared decision-making.” We are the Government and by definition we are held to account as being the Government and I think that makes that very difficult. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with Sir Peter Gluckman and Lord Robert Winston speaking on  
Q+A  
last weekend that investing in the early years of a child’s life will have long-term benefits; if so why is his starting point to talk about short-term spending decisions rather than seeking an agreement on what needs to be done? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and we are not: we have a green paper to do exactly that. 
Hon Annette King 
: So why then did the Prime Minister rule out talking to other parties and say it was tricky because we have to talk about spending priorities? Why not talk about what we need to do for children—and there are commitments from parties all around this House—rather than being so arrogant as to say he will not sit down and talk? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am happy to talk to parties and I am sure the Minister who has responsibility in this area will be more than happy to engage with the Labour Party and other political parties that are interested in this area. But the reality is that in the end there will be a variety of decisions that will need to be made as a result of that and it is very unlikely that there will be bipartisan support on all of those. 
Maternity Services—Maternity Quality and Safety Programme 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Health: what action is the Government taking to improve maternity services? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Could both front benches please desist. I want to hear Nicky Wagner’s question. 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action is the Government taking to improve maternity services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The latest report of the Perinatal and Maternal Mortality Review Committee for 2009 confirms that maternity services are performing well but that improvements are needed and the Government is doing that. This year we have committed an extra $54 million for our maternity quality and safety programme and for extra Plunket and Tamariki Ora visits particularly focused on new mothers who need additional support. That extra funding comes on top of additional funding for improving maternity services in our first year. This year $33 million extra has gone into new national Maternity Standards revised referral guidelines for midwives and doctors and the building of a comprehensive maternity database which went live last weekend. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What support has there been from the health sector for the Government’s maternity quality and safety programme? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The medical colleges representing obstetricians general practitioners midwives and anaesthetists say that this programme is a big step forward in providing women and their babies with a safer more streamlined maternity service. The Government’s maternity quality and safety programme is the result of 2 years of collaborative effort by all of these groups and I must say that getting all of them on the same page is a significant achievement that shows a new era of cooperation and commitment by maternity professionals and the Government thanks them for that. 
Capital Gains Tax—Government Position 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Which of the following statements by the Prime Minister accurately reflects the Government’s position: that a capital gains tax would send New Zealand “screaming backwards” or that “we actually have a capital gains tax in New Zealand”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Both statements are correct. Tax is paid on some capital gains in New Zealand and the member’s package of big spending more taxes and more debt would send New Zealand screaming backwards. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Did the introduction of a capital gains tax in Australia in 1985 send Australia screaming backwards or did Australia’s GDP per capita begin to grow much faster than New Zealand’s from that point? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is probably stretching the bow a bit even for the member. I am not familiar with what happened when it was introduced in Australia. What I do know is that one of the reasons the Australian economy performed better over the last 10 years is that it had better spending restraint better tax reform and better microeconomic policy—and that was when that member was in Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister support Labour’s $5000 tax-free zone that delivers a net income tax reduction for 98 percent of income earners; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I understand that that is part of a package that Labour is proposing that involves a big increase in Government spending new taxes and more borrowing when the economy needs exactly the opposite to get on its feet to grow and to lift incomes. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Who would be the losers from a partial and poorly designed capital gains tax? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is quite a long list of them actually—pretty well anyone who benefits from productive investment. So 1.6 million KiwiSavers would face increased taxes on gains on their investment; 500000 businesses would have to have their operations valued for tax purposes then keep track of the value through their lifetimes; and interestingly property traders would get a cut in capital gains tax because they currently pay 33c in the dollar and under the Labour package people who trade in property would pay only 15c on their capital gains. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my own flow of supplementary questions but the misrepresentation in that reply was just so extraordinary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The more valid point of order would have been that the Minister should not be commenting on Labour Party policies for the risk of— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Misrepresentation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —misrepresentation indeed. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to try to referee because the question was not out of order and the Minister was being very careful until the last minute. Members can see how the House gets into disorder and how difficult it gets when members encourage Ministers to comment on other parties’ policies because Ministers have no responsibility for them. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table the question and answer produced at the time of the release of our capital gains tax which shows that the tax treatment of traders in property would not result in a reduction in taxes for them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it this is a document prepared by the Labour Party? 
Hon David Parker 
: Yes. It was our policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with Labour that the tax system should be designed to minimise harmful impacts on growth; if so has he seen this graph from Treasury showing that a capital gains tax is better for the economy than income tax? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do agree with the member that tax systems should be designed so that they do not have a detrimental impact on growth. That is why I find it hard to understand why he has just released a package that will have exactly a detrimental impact on growth. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given his belief that a comprehensive capital gains tax is the right thing to do will he be proposing a capital gains tax that includes the family home or will he stick with his current tax settings which the Tax Working Group he set up calls “deeply flawed” “inequitable” and “inefficient”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is not correct. The Tax Working Group followed the same logic as a lot of people do and that is the experts start out saying a comprehensive capital gains tax is a good idea then they have to come up with exemptions like people over the age of 55 the family home some classes of shares property speculators and so on and they end up with a tax so complicated that they do not implement it. That member has produced a package that is about bigger Government spending higher taxes and more debt and that is bad for the economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the Tax Working Group report that described current tax settings as “deeply flawed”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have had that report available to them. The Tax Working Group report is available to all members. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table this graph from IMF data which shows the percentage gap between Australian and New Zealand GDP per capita increasing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member tell the House who has prepared the graph. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The source is the IMF and the data was graphed by the Labour research unit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Labour research unit. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table this graph prepared by the New Zealand Treasury which shows the growth effects of taxes and public expenditures showing that an income tax is generally worse for the economy than a capital gains tax. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member identify the document it came from. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is sourced from Treasury. It is part of the Tax Working Group’s background papers on its website. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered—both sides please. Leave is sought to table that document from a paper prepared for the Tax Working Group. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement that we actually have a capital gains tax in New Zealand what is the current list of exemptions from that tax? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member can look up the tax Act if he wants to see exactly how it applies. What I can tell members is that the package of measures that involve bigger Government spending— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —new taxes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and more debt is bad for the economy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister why I should not ask him to leave the House because he clearly saw me on my feet and was determined to continue. The question asked was a fair question in fact asking the Minister of Finance what the exemptions from the existing capital gains tax were. That is actually a fair question and the House could perhaps expect the Minister of Finance to know that. To answer it by way of talking about the Labour Party’s policy when I am on my feet is unacceptable—totally. There are not any other questions to the Minister. I will ask the Minister of Finance to leave the House. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers will learn that they must not continue when I am on my feet to stop an abuse of question time. I do not mind Ministers climbing into some questions because they contain political assertions and the questioners deserve anything they get but that was a straight question. It asked the Minister of Finance what the exemptions to the current capital gains tax were. For it to be answered in that way is not acceptable. I warn all members of the House that we are heading towards a difficult time of the year—I know that; I am not stupid—but we have to keep this House operating effectively. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is no longer in the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well there has to be a Minister responsible— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In considering the matter I looked at whether there were any more questions to the Minister and determined that there were not any and no one indicated to me that that was wrong. Had there been any indication that there were further questions I would not have asked him to leave the House. So the member cannot win twice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling on the Hon Bill English but day in and day out Trevor Mallard continually— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I would like to have the opportunity to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I am aware of what he is trying to say but it is not helpful. I am fully aware of what goes on and the member saw me express my displeasure to the Hon Trevor Mallard today for some of his interjections. I did it in not very complimentary language. I have to be totally impartial in this House. When Ministers refuse to acknowledge the Speaker on his feet and continue—the member will stop interjecting—to get a political point across when I am on my feet that cannot continue. 
Air Quality—Clean Heating 
7. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve air quality and what reports has he received on what progress is being achieved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The major source of air pollution is old home fires so this Government has ramped up the investment in converting them to clean heating from the $2.2 million that was spent in the last Parliament to the over $20 million spent this term. This has enabled more than 20000 homes to be converted to heat pumps compliant log burners and pellet fires. We have also tightened up the rules on vehicles and fuel and the regional councils have taken steps to reduce industrial particulate pollution through tighter resource consent conditions. Yesterday I was pleased to release the 2010 air quality figures for New Zealand showing the best results ever in terms of New Zealand’s air quality. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What additional steps is the Government taking to help New Zealand achieve the 2016 and 2020 targets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is merging the Clean Heat and Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programmes which are separately funded by Vote Environment and Vote Energy so as to reduce compliance costs and administrative costs. This will enable another 1250 homes per year to be converted and will reduce the amount of particulate pollution by an additional 35 tonnes per year. I also announced yesterday a new compliance strategy setting out clear expectations of the regional councils in terms of the role they need to play in making sure we meet those clean air targets. 
Earthquakes Royal Commission—Legal Representation for Victims’ Families 
8. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Why has he refused to provide funding to the earthquake victims’ families who want legal representation at the Royal Commission of Inquiry? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Government has decided not to fund legal representation because the royal commission is taking a very comprehensive approach to ensure that families are engaged with the inquiry. The royal commission has been resourced appropriately for that engagement. Counsel assisting the royal commission are ensuring that the families’ interests are fairly represented and are taken into account. The commission has engaged a families’ liaison person who is doing very good work. In addition commission chair Justice Mark Cooper has met personally with victims’ families at their request. The Government is determined to find the cause of the building failures that caused this tragedy in Canterbury and that is why it has constituted a royal commission of inquiry—the highest-level independent fact-finding body that there is. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confront both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same in that first each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second each has— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: One’s a natural disaster. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I know interjections are allowed but this is a rather serious issue and I would have thought it should be dealt with in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The initial interjections were not actually very intrusive and the member chose to stop. I ask members though to be reasonable. This is a serious question. The member may start his question again. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to carry on please. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confronted both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same in that first each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second each has a strong desire to find out how and why this occurred; third each wants a robust inquiry directed at establishing effective and meaningful preventive measures; and fourth each wants direct involvement in the inquiry with the aid of independent counsel of their choosing; if he argues that the circumstances are not the same could he advise the House precisely what the distinction is in respect of each tragedy that compelled the Government to treat the respective family groups differently? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Let me make it clear that I fully accept and understand the way that this tragedy has affected the lives of those who were unfortunate enough to experience the death of friends and loved ones. Each royal commission deals however with particular circumstances. I think for the member’s benefit I could say this: a closer analogy to the kind of commission of inquiry we are engaged with in the case of the Canterbury earthquakes is the 2009 royal commission into the Victorian bushfires in which the kinds of arrangements for engagement with the royal commission were the same there as are proposed here. But I certainly do not seek to diminish the extent of the tragedy and its effects on those poor families. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the victims’ families do not require independent legal representation because royal commissions of inquiry are “inquisitorial in nature” and “engaged in fact-finding” as he said in a letter to the quake families why then has he provided legal representation to Pike River victims’ families for their royal commission? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because as I have said in both answers already given it depends on the particular circumstances. The better analogy here is not with Pike River; it is with the Victorian royal commission in which counsel assisting the commission liaised with families in order to assist those families through that particular process. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given he said last year: “We recognise the importance of the families of the Pike River victims being represented and participating in the Royal Commission of Inquiry and will move to see that happens.” does that mean he does not recognise the importance of earthquake victims’ families being independently—not with counsel assisting the commission but independently—represented in this royal commission inquiry? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I certainly recognise the need for those families to be heard by the royal commission. That is exactly why Justice Mark Cooper and the other commissioners have personally met with them and why there is a liaison person who as I said is doing very good work and who is keeping in constant contact with them. Counsel assisting the commission will be representing them and I believe that it is that combination of matters that will ensure these poor people do have the chance to make their submissions to the royal commission. 
Prisoners—Rehabilitation and Rate of Reoffending 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What is the Department of Corrections doing to improve the rehabilitation of prisoners and to reduce the rate of reoffending? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections’ commitment to cut reoffending rates is being demonstrated by the roll-out of a case management model across all sentenced prisoners. This new approach will involve specialised case managers providing a wraparound service to individual prisoners by working closely with them from the beginning to the end of their sentence. To support this initiative the department has employed 177 case managers and will shortly start recruiting for another 50. This will enable 227 case managers to work directly with prisoners to reduce their risk of reoffending. This is a major investment in the management of prisoners in New Zealand. Along with alcohol and drug treatment a range of intensive rehabilitation programmes work training and education it should result in a meaningful reduction in reoffending rates. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What does the new case management approach mean for individual prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The new model’s end-to-end approach means that one person will proactively work with and motivate a prisoner throughout their sentence. This is a big improvement on the earlier approach to sentence management which was limited to identifying the programmes the prisoner was eligible for and scheduling these into a sentence plan. It meant numerous people could be involved in different aspects of an individual’s rehabilitation. The case managers will work particularly closely with high-risk offenders because this is where they can have the biggest impact. All sentenced prisoners are now being moved across to their new case managers who will work with them to develop their rehabilitation plans. 
Early Childhood Education Task Force Report—Government Response 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is her proposed timeframe for delivering the Government response to the ECE Taskforce recommendations? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Consultation on the report’s recommendations closes next week on Monday 8 August. The Government will then carefully consider the feedback from consultation before making any decisions. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was on notice and asked for a time frame for the delivery of the Government’s response. I did not hear an answer to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma I have is that I do not know—the Minister may have been indicating that actually a time frame has not been fixed yet. I invite the Minister to clarify her answer with respect because it is a question on notice. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We are in the middle of consultation. Once the consultation finishes then I am saying the Government will have a look at that consultation will carefully consider it and then will make its decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It appears there is no time frame at present. 
Sue Moroney 
: I had figured that thank you Mr Speaker. Will she then immediately rule out accepting the funding cuts proposed by her task force to Playcentre of up to 70 percent in order to give certainty to the families of the 15000 children who attend playcentres throughout New Zealand? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The task force was independent from the Government and as I said the Government has not even considered any decisions from its recommendations. However this Government has made it very clear that it values parent-led services like Playcentre. This Government expanded the 20 hours’ early childhood education services to Playcentre. This Government has made sure that the regulations that guide early childhood services have been amended to lessen the costs and burden on Playcentre. So this Government certainly supports parent-led playcentres. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question about whether the Minister would rule out accepting the funding cuts proposed by the task force. She gave all sorts of interesting information but did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness I supported the member to get a further answer from the Minister on the primary question but the Minister if I heard correctly in answer to that supplementary question said the Government is in the process of considering the task force report. Ministers are perfectly at liberty not to rule out any aspects until they finish considering a report. I think that is what the Minister was indicating to the House. That is not unreasonable. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she rule out the funding cuts of up to 80 percent proposed by her task force to home-based early childhood education in order to give certainty to the families of the 17000 children who attend home-based early childhood education throughout New Zealand and also the funding cuts of up to 78 percent for the 9000 children and their families who attend kohanga reo? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat: the Government has made no decisions about the task force recommendations. It is currently out for consultation with the sector and we will listen to what the sector has to say about the very thorough report from the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she commit then to keeping the same subsidies and fee controls in place for 20 hours’ early childhood education in order to give certainty to the families of 140000 children who attend centre-based early childhood education services given that her Taskforce on Early Childhood Education recommends dropping the universal 20 hours’ early childhood education subsidy from the current $11.25 per child per hour down to just $8.80 per child per hour? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government has made no decisions on any recommendations from the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education. But this Government has put $1.4 billion into early childhood education which is the most any Government has ever spent and is an increase of 38 percent since we came into Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked for a commitment about 20 hours’ early childhood education in terms of the subsidies and the fee controls. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has to be reasonable in the answers she expects to questions. If the Government is considering as the Minister has explained to the House this task force report—and we have to accept that the Minister has said that—how can the Minister then rule out this and rule out that? The member has to be reasonable in that when the Government is still considering a task force report I cannot insist the Minister pre-empt its decisions by giving answers to the House ahead of the Government making decisions on those issues. I just cannot do that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What progress has the Minister achieved in responding to the concerns raised by kohanga reo about any changes to their funding or governance and does the Minister believe that because of the key role kohanga reo play in the survival of te reo Maori there are special reasons why the kohanga reo movement must be supported? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes we absolutely do believe that kohanga reo have a very special place and that is why we extended the 20 hours policy to include them. That is why the Education Review Office has developed a special review methodology to recognise their very special tikanga. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenants’ Behaviour 
11. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is Housing New Zealand doing to identify and address fraudulent behaviour by some tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The overwhelming majority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants appreciate their homes and abide by the rules. However there are a small minority who access homes and subsidies they do not need. Over the past 2½ years the Housing New Zealand Corporation has built a highly effective team of expert investigators. Since July 2010 241 tenancies have been ended following investigations and 119 tenants have been successfully prosecuted for fraud. I commend the Housing New Zealand Corporation for taking action against those people who are locking out families genuinely in need of State houses. 
Todd McClay 
: What kind of activities have tenants been undertaking that have led to action being taken against them? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Examples include a South Auckland tenant who obtained a State house in 1998 and who was found not to have declared his wife’s true income. The tenant also forged and falsified his own employer income statements in order to obtain a lower rent. Twenty-one fraud charges were laid the tenancy was terminated a debt of $55000 was established and the tenant was sentenced to 5 months’ home detention. Another tenant had a company under an assumed name received undeclared income under another name and did not report it to the Housing New Zealand Corporation or the Ministry of Social Development. The tenant pled guilty to 10 charges of fraud—$91000 worth of debt was against the tenant—and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. But what is important is that the two houses in these two cases were freed up for those who were genuinely in need. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why does he not hold his own department the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the same level of accountability and compliance with the law as its tenants given this political letter drafted for National MPs by Housing New Zealand Corporation communication staff and intended to “manage public perception of National Party policy” in clear breach of the requirement for impartiality under the State Sector Act? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I would be interested in seeing the letter. 
Moana Mackey 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Housing New Zealand Corporation drafted for National MPs in an attempt to manage— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last bit is totally out of order. We have seen enough abuse of the Standing Orders today. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The quote “in order to manager public perception” comes from the cover letter from the department concerned. It is not something that Moana Mackey was making up; it was a quote from the cover document. 
Chris Tremain 
: We allowed it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No she targeted the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has made his point well. I apologise to the honourable member but leave was granted for the document to be tabled. 
Transport Usage Auckland—Public Transport Compared with State Highways 
12. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: By how many percentage points has public transport patronage in Auckland increased over the past three years and how does this compare to the percentage increase in state highway volumes over the same period? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Good news! The Government has made excellent progress. Public transport trips have increased 20 percent in Auckland over the last 3 years mostly due to an 18 percent increase in bus patronage. That means that about 6 percent of all journeys to work in Auckland now use public transport. This compares with State highway volumes which increased just under 1 percent in the last 3 years. However they still of course make up around 90 percent of all journeys to work. Finally I congratulate the member on asking his second oral question since he took over— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Supplementary question the Hon Shane Jones. [ 
Interruption 
] I want to hear the Hon Shane Jones’ supplementary question. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It is good to see that the Minister knows how to count to two rather than one which always looks like “I”. Why does the draft— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come to order. The Minister can see what happens when the Standing Orders are not complied with. The Standing Orders are written for good reason. If they are complied with they keep order in this House. The Minister should not have added the last part to his answer. I realise it was done in reasonably good humour but then the member’s start to his question was in reasonably good humour. But let us call it again one all at this stage but not continue the match. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why does the draft 2012 Government policy statement propose to slash funding for public transport infrastructure from $100 million in the 2010 financial year to a range between $20 million and $60 million for the next 3 years; and given the significant increase in public transport patronage in Auckland why is he gutting the funding? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is incorrect. It actually points out in the Government policy statement that the reason that has changed is that we have shifted most of the public transport infrastructure funding outside the Government policy statement with the help of my Cabinet colleagues investing more in it by investing more directly in the rail system. In Auckland as the member may or may not be aware we are currently investing around $1.6 billion in improving the Auckland commuter rail infrastructure without using a regional fuel tax and we are also investing several hundred million dollars in the Wellington commuter rail infrastructure none of which is included in the National Land Transport Fund. It is actually the biggest investment in public transport in this country since the Hungarian trains were bought by the Rt Hon Sir Robert Muldoon back in the late 1970s. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he acknowledge the significant distance between him and the Auckland Council’s transport priorities through his moves to reduce the funding assistance rates for rail operators disregarding the regional land transport strategy through his Land Transport Management Act reforms and continuing to prefer the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” over the council’s number one priority which is the city rail link? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am a great believer in testing every project to ensure that it provides the best value for money. The member needs to be aware that measured on the same basis currently between the Puhoi to Wellsford road and the Auckland central city rail loop the Puhoi to Wellsford road has a benefit-cost ratio in excess of 1 and the central city rail loop is between 0.3 and 0.4 which was of course significantly less than 1 the last time I looked. Yes we do need to make significant investment in public transport in our biggest city and we are doing so. We are just being very careful to make sure that all the investments are actually worthwhile. 
David Shearer 
: Is he aware that the Ministry of Transport’s review of the city rail link and the benefit-cost ratio relies on 200 to 300 buses per hour through the streets of Auckland’s central business district which is a premise that the Auckland Council deems nonsensical; if so does he agree with the council or his ministry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the difficulty we are in with the central business district rail loop is that quite obviously the council has gone to that solution without looking at all the other options that are possible to improve public transport access in Auckland. I point out to the member that all the independent analysis by the Ministry of Transport and Treasury on the central business district rail loop says it will do very little to improve congestion. I am prepared to say that it is possible that the central business district rail link is the next project in Auckland but rather than bolting towards it without any consideration of the costs as the Labour Party is doing I think we have to ask some tough questions. 
David Shearer 
: Given the Minister’s answer to written question No. 1515 that the calculation of the wider economic benefits on the “Holiday Highway” is not consistent with New Zealand Transport Agency’s own economic evaluation manual has he asked for the business case to be re-evaluated; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: What I can confirm for the member is that the two projects—the central business district rail loop and the Puhoi to Wellsford road—have been measured using the same ruler and have been found to be very very significantly— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Oh rubbish. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well it happens to be true. I know it is sometimes difficult to face the truth when one is in the Labour Party but it is actually true that it is over 1 versus 0.3 to 0.4. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Did you hear what he just said? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard what he just said but I also heard interjections from the Labour Party that provoked him. If members do not want other members who have the floor—and the member may resume his seat—to comment they should not make loud interjections. I think the interjection related to something about the truth and [ 
Interruption 
]—we are not going to take that matter further. If members do not want Ministers to pick up on interjections they should not interject. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This House should note today the competent and consistent financial management of Prime Minister John Key and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English which is serving New Zealand so well in such an uncertain global economic environment. This Government’s plan of reducing debt of returning us to surplus within 3 years of opening new markets and growing exports of investing in infrastructure of reducing compliance costs and of getting a more efficient Public Service is all about building a faster-growing economy. It is the right plan at the right time. I could spend this entire speech just noting the raft of reforms we have made over the last 2½ years that are contributing to building a stronger economy. 
More debt is the last thing New Zealand needs right now. We need look only at the dramas in countries like the United States and Greece to know that that is the wrong plan. The worry for New Zealand is our high levels of private debt. Private debt soared from $68 billion in 1999 to $175 billion in 2008. That is $107 billion in just 9 years—nearly $12 billion of extra private debt for every single year during Labour’s last period in Government. Our tax package was about changing incentives. Since that package took effect household debt has been going flat and that is essential for New Zealand. 
It is not just private debt that this Government has had to address. In 2008 Treasury advised the incoming Government that we were looking at a decade of deficits. But in every single Budget this Government has pulled that back. We are now on track to get New Zealand back into surplus within 3 years. Over the adjournment we have seen Labour launch its muddled economic plan which can be described only as borrow spend and hope. There are two particular features of Labour’s economic plan that fall into my areas of responsibility and that Labour does not want New Zealanders to know about. Its emissions trading scheme policy is banking on a $50 price of carbon as part of its policy for ramping up that scheme. Mr Cunliffe has confirmed that his numbers are based on a $50 carbon price from the beginning of 2013. That will mean a 15 percent increase in power prices. That will mean a price increase of 10c a litre on fuel. Yet those members have got the cheek to pretend they are concerned about the cost of living. That carbon price would add $450 a year or $9 a week to the living costs of New Zealand families. It would wipe out any benefit of the messy tax proposal to take GST off some foods. But Labour’s emissions trading scheme is only half the problem. 
New Zealand now more than at any other time needs a strong exporting economy. That is why we are proud of the fact that Statistics New Zealand came out last week and said that in the last year there had been a 4.5 percent increase in New Zealand’s exports—something we should be proud of. The engine room of that growth is agriculture. Labour’s policy not only to put agriculture into the emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than the current law but also to put it in on tougher terms than for any other trade-exposed industry is just bizarre. Labour will put a higher price for carbon on to farmers than there is on Methanex or the aluminium smelter. And those members plead— 
Hon David Parker 
: No we’re not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes you are—absolutely you are. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s first 5 minutes were not particularly exciting and the half a minute he took after you rang the bell— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what the member’s intention was there. I think we will just forget about it. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This debate takes place against a background where this country this year will be in deficit of $16.8 billion—$16.8 billion. This country has been spending at the rate of $300 million a week more than it has been taking in. For a family of four that is $300 a week. That is $300 a week for the average New Zealand family—a father a mother and two children. This Government has been borrowing $300 a week per family more than it takes in. 
What an incredible irony for the Minister for Climate Change Issues to stand up and say that more debt is the last thing this country needs right now! He is suggesting that this National Government is concerned about debt yet it is his Government that has presented a Budget to this Parliament showing that in the last year we spent $16.8 billion more than we took in and in the current financial year we are looking at a deficit of just under $10 billion. 
This debate takes place against a background of a debt crisis in the United States. The United States came to the brink of defaulting on its debt—to the brink of defaulting. We see in Europe an unfolding debt crisis. It is not just in Greece Ireland and Portugal but in countries we once knew to be stable and strong countries like Spain and Italy. 
The ACT Party just recently sent out over 100000 letters all around New Zealand asking New Zealanders whether we should be following a policy of borrow and hope or whether this Government should be living within its means. We got an overwhelming response. Thousands of New Zealanders returned the survey form to Parliament saying they totally rejected a policy of borrow and hope and that they supported a policy of getting the country back to living within its means. 
The Minister talked about competent and consistent financial management. He talked about reducing debt. He talked about getting the country back into surplus. Well I say to that Minister that if he was really concerned about reducing debt and about getting this country back into surplus then this National Government would have taken a much closer look at its expenses. He referred to the emissions trading scheme. Few New Zealanders understand that Vote Climate Change has allocated some $2 billion of credits to foresters—$2 billion of credits to foresters. Some of those credits have been allocated to people who have pre-1990 forests and who are denied the chance to convert them to more productive use. Those people are suffering a real loss. Equally there are people who have pre-1990 forests who can use that land only for forestry. They have suffered no loss and will be getting a windfall gain under his emissions trading scheme. 
Worse still is that the emissions trading scheme provides an incentive to go out and plant trees. It provides a one-off incentive of about 200 tonnes of carbon per hectare or a subsidy of about $4000 a hectare. That is sufficient for a forester to go out and buy high country land and plant trees. This Government is essentially giving away free forests and the Minister knows about it. 
So for National Ministers to stand up and pretend that they are concerned about the cost of living and the cost of debt and concerned about exports is a joke. There are many ways in which this Government could have reduced its expenditure to bring it within budget just like New Zealand families have to do but this Government has pursued a policy of borrow and hope. It may well come back to rue that day particularly when we see the unfolding situation in both Europe and the United States. 
Mr Smith said his package was about changing incentives. Yes it was important to change incentives but it would have been better still if the tax package had been about reducing taxes. It was not about reducing taxes; it was about improving incentives. Yes improving incentives is important. It is important to reduce the marginal rate of tax. It is important to send that incentive. In that regard we congratulate National. The real issue is to have far greater controls on Government expenditure to reduce expenditure and to get debt under control. The ACT Party is committed to promoting policies that will do just that. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is not often that I have the opportunity to agree with the honourable member John Boscawen who has just his resumed his seat but I do on this point: New Zealand’s debt is too high and borrowing an extra $380 million a week is irresponsible when the opportunity is here to consistently reduce that with sound tax reform that is backed by the authorities of the world economic system. A capital gains tax will fill in the largest tax loophole that is dragging this economy further into debt. The honourable member Dr Nick Smith sounded like a Tea Party Republican in his refusal to state the obvious: that the Government cannot get its way out of the mess that it has got the country into without addressing sensible tax reform. He also got our price of carbon wrong but I will not go into that; it is a story for another day. 
Yesterday Statistics New Zealand reaffirmed that New Zealanders earned on average only another 1.9 percent in their wages in the year to June except for those on the rich list who made a 20 percent gain—probably none of it taxed because much of that was capital gain. Yesterday the truth stared us in the face. What is the National Government’s solution to that inequality and to the debt mountain? It is to sell off New Zealand’s precious public assets sell our power companies raise GST on everything give the richest few a whopping tax cut attack workers’ rights with the 90-day fire-at-will law and drive down wage rates. Bill English thinks that is a great idea. Well thank goodness there is now a clear alternative: a strategy based on sound tax policy and a fiscal balance that gets to surplus the same year as the Government’s Budget and pays net debt to zero faster than the current Government does. 
The Government is trying to brand Labour as tax and spend while we are projecting zero net debt faster than the current Government’s own books. 
Hon David Parker 
: As we previously did. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is why nobody is taking the National Government seriously. My colleague has said the truth: we did it previously in 2007-08. Net debt was zero under Labour; net debt was zero. The Government hates it. Net debt is now about 20 percent. The Government cannot get away from the truth: net debt was zero under Labour. Net debt will be zero again under Labour with the tax plan we have unveiled. 
Let me just restate some of the important features of Labour’s proposed capital gains tax. It is a flat rate of 15 percent. It excludes the primary residence. Is that not interesting? The Prime Minister says this will have the country screaming backwards and that it is a dagger through the heart of capitalism but on the other hand he says we already have a capital gains tax. Bill English says the capital gains tax is the right thing to do but it is just not comprehensive enough. But 31 out of 34 OECD countries have one and only Japan puts the family home in. Labour will not put the family home in. Bill English wants to put the family home in. What side of the argument is the Government on? 
Under Labour’s design the capital gains tax will be a flat 15 percent. It will cover only future gains; it will not be retrospective. It will not cover unrealised gains. It will be broad-based and fair to all but it will not be intrusive and will not include personal property. It will not be an inheritance tax. It will not touch the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority area for at least 5 years. The Kiwi CGT—capital gains tax—will be carefully designed by an expert tax panel like the tax panel the Government set up and then ignored. That tax panel all but recommended the capital gains tax that the Labour Opposition has had the courage and foresight to stand up and say this country needs. 
There is another working group that the Government set up and then ignored: the Savings Working Group. Is it not interesting that the Prime Minister this week frightened by the reception of Labour’s capital gains tax has moved to cover his backside on savings and say we will have to do a green paper to try to resuscitate the Savings Working Group? It is too late. New Zealanders know that National has no credibility on savings. It cut superannuation and KiwiSaver incentives. It has no credibility. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 We have just heard the most extraordinary claim from the Opposition spokesperson on finance David Cunliffe. He got up and started his address by agreeing with the ACT Party that the Government was borrowing too much per month. This is the member who spent the whole of 2009 asking for more and more stimulus and more and more debt. He recklessly proposed that New Zealand go into massive additional debt during the largest recession that the world has seen in 70 years and he has the gall to say we are borrowing too much money. This is quite an extraordinary about-face—quite an extraordinary about-face. 
David Cunliffe was also a member of the previous Government which led the situation whereby New Zealand through debt-fuelled consumption growth had got its net debt up to the level of Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain. We heard from him the most extraordinary series of statements. He is imagining the past and remembering the future. 
Let us just sit down and look at the situation a little more calmly with a little more accuracy. Every adult in this country who is interested enough in current affairs to turn on the television in the evening or to turn on the radio and listen in the morning or the afternoon will be well aware of what is going on internationally. Even if they take only one simple message from this still dangerous situation in the major centres of developed power on both sides of the Atlantic the message they will be taking is this: fiscal prudence matters. Finally we run the risk of running out of other people’s money. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Trust me I’ll save Doha! 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: That is the message I say to Mr Cunliffe. People are not listening to him; they will be listening to what he said and the policies he supported as a member of the previous Government. They will be making their decision in November. When they make that decision they will remember exactly what National inherited in 2008. 
Mr English our Minister of Finance has laid out the broad outlines of what National inherited. First of all we inherited an economy that recorded less than 1 percent growth on average every year in the 3 years leading up to 2008. People will remember that not a single job had been added in the traded sector—the internationally competitive side of our economy—since 2004. Those are the facts that they will remember when they make their decision. 
New Zealanders will remember that Crown expenditure mushroomed from $32 billion to $60 billion over 8 years. Those are facts. Then in 2008 on top of what was really a completely failing policy with productivity having tanked as well Lehman Bros came along and caused this recession. We were then elected by the people of New Zealand and Treasury told us what the real state of New Zealand was. We were looking effectively at permanent deficits for the next 10 years a highly dangerous situation in any event but potentially lethal in the situation that we have been looking at internationally over the last 2 years where people get very nervous about lending ever-increasing amounts of money to countries that do not have the elementary facts of economic life in the right space. 
This is a situation that we are seeing played out right now internationally. Let us take the most extreme examples of Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain. Bills are not being paid in Greece now for basic pharmaceuticals. We are seeing a situation where in the railways sector the wages exceeded the total revenue by something like 60 percent. So finally in those extreme situations we learn the hard way that we do run out of other people’s money. So National has set about changing the track and that will frame the election debate in all aspects at the end of this year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Savings Working Group reported to the Government earlier this year. It stated that “the economy”—that is the New Zealand economy—“faces serious structural and other problems.” What structural problems was it referring to? Primarily it was referring to the fact that we are not earning our way in the world. It was not so worried about Government debt; Government debt is bad and under this Government it is worse than it was because we have a $16 billion deficit. But the greater problem in New Zealand is that approximately 86 percent of New Zealand’s overseas debt is private. That amount is going up every year and is projected under the Government’s own Budget to go up every year because every year from now the current account deficit gets worse and that hole is plugged by more borrowing from overseas meaning that New Zealand gets poorer every year until the end of the Government’s projection period. 
I am not talking about the Government deficit here; I am talking about the overall wealth of our nation including both public and private debt. The Government’s own projection shows that at the end of its projection period if New Zealand is unfortunate enough to have a National Government re-elected for another term New Zealand will get poorer and then in the next year it will get poorer and in the next year it will get poorer still. That is why the Savings Working Group said New Zealand has structural working problems and it is right. Treasury agrees. If we have a structural problem we need a structural fix; we need to pull the levers that the Government can pull in order to get investment going into the right section of the economy—to grow the economy to grow exports to grow jobs and to reduce debt. 
Gareth Morgan said of the lack of a capital gains tax that it is “the biggest tax rort in the country and one that has cost us all dearly in terms of efficient allocation of capital economic growth and employment.” Westpac chief economist Dominick Stephens said “New Zealanders are incentivised to borrow money to buy land rather than invest in productive assets.” He said that if we introduced a capital gains tax then that incentive would be diminished and there would be a greater incentive for people to save via bank deposits or productive business ownership. 
He is not the only one who thinks that the Labour Party tax switch is a good idea. The New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association says “The eradication of the capital gains tax harbour will help to lift productive investment. A more balanced tax system will see investment flow to the most intrinsically profitable areas of the economy rather than those that are tax advantaged.” The Productive Economy Council said the same thing: “A capital gains tax sends the right signals for investors and means those choosing to take the path of unproductive property investment will have to pay their fair share of tax. While fairness in tax is good the real long-term benefit is the chance to get more of our limited capital invested in making New Zealand more not less competitive.” 
As a consequence of that in part we have comments like this from John Roughan at the  
New Zealand Herald.  
He wrote “Tax-free capital gains on property investment is the one crippling flaw remaining in our economy. Economists know it accountants know it even if they don’t like it. Politicians of every party know it though none have had the courage to do anything about it.” That is until Phil Goff and the Labour Party took this on. The  
Dominion Post 
 said the same thing: “There is a gaping hole in the tax system. Different sources of income are taxed differently. Earn $50000 by working 40 hours a week and you will be taxed at the going rate for income. Make a $50000 profit on the sale of a rental property and you will not be taxed at all”. Even the  
National Business Review 
 says “Capital gains and property taxes may be touchstone issues—because of the logic of taxing all income regardless of source”. 
Pattrick Smellie pointed out that the poll of the Minister of Finance Bill English came out 88 percent in favour of our proposal. But still the rudderless National Government—without a plan for the economy—puts its head in the sand and accuses us of tax and spend. It cut one tax and increased another—and it is a tax switch. It says that when we cut one tax and increase another it is tax and spend. Patently it is not; this is a tax switch that enables 98 percent of New Zealanders to get an income tax cut and enables us to pay off debt faster than the National Government was going to and to return to surplus in the same year in which the National Government was going to. This is good policy. National is on the wrong side of this debate. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 How predictable but utterly farcical it was that yet another Labour member would suggest this afternoon that only that discredited party has a coherent plan for restoring this nation’s health and securing long-term economic growth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Absolutely no one is fooled by the suggestion and members opposite rightly look sheepish when they trot it out. 
Mr Cunliffe’s prescription is a mixture of pie-in-the-sky unreality and head-in-the-sand ignorance of the challenges we face. Only that member could achieve such an anatomical absurdity. When Michael Cullen left office nearly 3 years ago he boasted that he was bequeathing a decade of deficits to his successors. After squandering a decade of the most favourable economic conditions that have existed in my lifetime Labour’s legacy was to promote middle-class welfare increase Government spending at twice the rate of revenue encourage an explosion in bureaucracy at the expense of the delivery of front-line services and make a raft of promises and commitments that it had neither the ability nor the intention to fund. 
Despite the recession and the severity of the Canterbury earthquakes in just under 3 years under the stewardship of John Key and Bill English we have improved the outlook markedly. The Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Trade have already highlighted most of those gains. Most of us agree that we want to attract talented expatriate New Zealanders home—[ 
Interruption 
]—and when Mr Nash is offshore in the next 3 years he will probably be hoping we will find a way to bring him home too. No one pretends that it is easy to achieve that but nothing in Labour’s prescription announced to date will do anything but exacerbate the problem. 
Which of these Labour policies will bring our talented young people home: more taxes for responsible investors? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Higher incomes that will hit those who are currently earning good incomes in New York London or Sydney? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: The prospect of greater borrowing offshore and a bigger deficit compromising our international credit rating? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Or more Government spending on feel-good schemes while the debt reaches record levels and future generations are left to mop up? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Of course the answer is no. It is absolute madness. Distorting the tax system by introducing ineffective exemptions and layers of complexity will provide no significant benefits to taxpayers and consumers but it will add greatly to the administrative costs of businesses and the bureaucracy of administering our tax system. 
Although a number of people in my city would like to see more Government spending for a particular programme or pet project—and that is fair enough we all would from time to time—not one of my constituents has told me that Labour’s prescription of new taxes irresponsible spending and more Government borrowing is the answer. Not one person has told me that. Only Labour members of the New Zealand Parliament can be oblivious to the international economic situation at present: the American debt crisis and the experiences of Ireland Greece Portugal and so on. 
Fortunately the New Zealand public are much more aware of those challenges and better informed about the National-led Government’s focused and effective programme to avoid those circumstances which would be utterly devastating for our country. The choice for voters on 26 November will be between a Government that is well led by a Prime Minister who commands widespread respect and support for his vision his talent and his experience; and a divided and demoralised Opposition whose members stand behind their ineffective leader at the moment only because none of them wants to take on the poisoned chalice this close to the election. 
There is no doubt that later this afternoon and tonight Labour members will again waste the time of the House with pointless contributions in support of one of their own measures that no party in this House opposes as they have done on every members’ day for months. Those tactics speak volumes about their lack of focus and purpose and their complete disconnection from the things that matter to New Zealand and they illustrate the total lack of fitness of the Labour Opposition to return to Government. 
Meanwhile we on this side of the House have been applying ourselves to the issues that do matter to New Zealanders with considerable success. In my electorate of Hamilton West three-quarters of taxpayers now pay an income tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent. That is a fantastic result. We have seen 100000 homes insulated so far under the Government’s efficiency programme—[ 
Interruption 
]—not just in Hamilton but around the country. Around the country we have seen $1.4 billion spent on early childhood education—the highest spend ever. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I think Tim Macindoe spoke for 5 minutes. I did not hear one word he said. I certainly did not hear anything about a plan. Well no there was one thing he said. He talked about my being overseas in the next 3 years. I think he meant when I am overseas as Labour’s Minister of Trade and perhaps Minister of Foreign Affairs. The member pre-empts what will happen in the next Labour Cabinet. I thank him very much for the vote of confidence. 
I have seen the member Paul Quinn sit there and write out about 122 letters. Mr Speaker can you please advise the honourable member that he has to sign only one letter of resignation and it will be accepted. He does not have to hand a letter of resignation to every single member but I am sure that if he did it would be accepted by the other 121 members in this House. 
Tim Macindoe did say one thing that was very right. Mr Macindoe said that at this election the voters have a choice. To use Mr Key’s words this election will be a mandate around the sale of State assets. That is what Mr Macindoe’s leader said. The people of New Zealand have two very clear choices. The Government’s plan is to sell State assets our power companies Air New Zealand Kiwibank etc. The choice is to sell those State assets or keep our assets in New Zealand ownership and have much-needed tax reform. The choice is to sell State assets and retain an unfair tax system or have a fair tax reform and keep State assets. 
The sale of State assets to foreign owners is not a plan for our future. It shows no vision and it represents no plan. In fact it is in the same league as mining our national parks. The only two plans the Government has come up with in 3 years are to sell State assets and mine national parks. The plan to mine national parks was rejected outright and as the Prime Minister said the mandate around the sale of State assets will go the same way. 
Let us be very clear about this: it will not be ma and pa investors who will own our power companies; it will be Australian pension funds US investment partnerships and the Chinese Government. I will tell members why. It is because the vast majority of ma and pa investors around this country are struggling at this point in time to put food on the table petrol in the car clothes on the kids’ backs; to service a mortgage; and to pay their power account. It just shows how out of touch the Minister of Finance in the National Government is if he believes that ma and pa investors can also afford to buy shares. 
Let us be honest Contact Energy is not owned by ma and pa New Zealand investors. Eighty percent of Contact Energy which Mr English privatised in his previous stint as the Minister of Finance is owned by 0.1 percent of the investors. That is $100 million of money that could be coming into the Government coffers but which now goes across to Australia. 
Every single country in the OECD except Switzerland and Turkey has a capital gains tax. The OECD the IMF Treasury the Government’s Savings Working Group and Bill English have all said that New Zealand needs a capital gains tax. This is not rocket science. Fair and equitable tax policy and reform are necessary to ensure that all New Zealanders pay their fair share. The Government’s own Tax Working Group has said: “A capital gains tax is generally said to support the integrity of the tax system by reducing opportunities for tax planning and tax avoidance.” Robin Oliver the recently retired but long-serving Deputy Commissioner of Policy Advice of the Inland Revenue Department wrote: “The concept of a capital gain is not an economic concept; it is a concept from equity law.” 
The voters of New Zealand have two choices: to sell our State assets and retain an unfair tax system or have a fair tax system and retain our State assets. Thank you. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in this general debate. Over the last week many people have emailed me about the situation in the United States. I think that shows the grave situation we are seeing right around the world. In fact I had the opportunity recently to hear a former Labour Prime Minister speak. That was Mr Blair. What became very clear from his speech was that the world has changed. He made the point that around the world and particularly within the European Union 21 out of 27 countries now have elected centre-right Governments. Why is that? It is because the policies of the past the borrowing the spend the debt-ridden policies of the past have not worked. The public are smart. They understand that that is not the direction that will take us out of this current crisis. That is why when I have been doorknocking what has been amazing is that people are not even talking about Labour policies any more. A number of people have said to me: “We have stopped listening to Labour because they have lost touch. They do not understand the reality of the situation.” Many people are saying to me that they do not listen to the Labour Party any more because there has been a basic failure to understand the gravity of the situation in this country and around the world. 
I am very proud that at a time when we have had the largest global recession within a generation and when we have been hit by one of the largest natural disasters in developed countries around the world we have managed to turn round this decade of deficits to see public debt go under 30 percent and to see us come out of deficit within several years. Many people whom I know overseas have emailed me to say how lucky we are to be in this situation when we look at countries like the United States. We have done that because we have had a very clear plan and that plan has been about good fiscal economic management. It has been about good tax reform. It has been about investment in infrastructure investment in transport investment in our education system and in terms of capital infrastructure and investment in broadband. It has been about a reduction in regulation. That has arisen from the reform of the Resource Management Act the reform of the Building Act and the reform of local government within Auckland. It might be boring to some people but it has been successful. It has been successful in turning round a decade of deficit. 
As I said before when we look at what Labour is proposing people have stopped listening. The reason they have stopped listening is when we look at the capital gains tax package. It suggests going from four to six tax rates for income tax different differentials around GST for different types of food and a gap of 11 percent between the company tax rate and the top personal tax rate. The capital gains tax package is riddled with exemptions that are not about good economic management. They are about politics. The fact is that Labour’s package is an absolute dog’s breakfast and everybody knows it. People are saying to me that they have stopped listening to Labour because the policies of the past which are to borrow more get the country into more debt have higher spending and crippling debt for this country are not what they want. That is why right around the world we are seeing centre-right Governments being elected. People understand that Labour policies are not the solution to this current crisis. New Zealanders are saying to me that they want good economic management they want to continue the plan that sees investment in our infrastructure including our schools our broadband and our transport—yes including over a billion dollars for the electrification of rail in Auckland and including billions of dollars of investment in our roads of national significance. 
People are realising that during the “noughties” where Labour is still stuck in this time warp there was a real lack of investment in this country. Investment is not necessarily sexy and members might consider it to be boring but it is working. A process and a plan that sees a reduction in regulation through building reform through Resource Management Act reform and through low tax rates is actually seeing our country one of only several countries in the OECD to come out of deficit. That is something we are very proud of and it is something we will be campaigning on. We will be going to the New Zealand public to say that during the largest global recession and at a time when a massive event occurred in Christchurch we will be taking this country into surplus and that is something we are very proud of. We look forward to 26 November. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 For the small number of Kiwis listening to the debate I say that that was the member for Auckland Central who is soon to be extinct as a consequence of poorly understanding the challenges in her very small geographically located area. It is an area full of people who want to see genuine solutions to Auckland’s congestion and transport problems. Every time Nikki Kaye speaks what she says is inversely related to what they want which is why they are all flying to our side of the House. 
Let me come back to the theme of this debate. I do not know why that member is so negative about the “noughties”. I quite enjoyed that time myself. That was the time when the Helen Clark Government maintained an inordinate amount of expenditure in key areas to do with social assets revived the prospects of the roading system and introduced the hypothecation and put it into law which is something that National was incapable of doing during those bleak times of Bill English and Jim Bolger who now earns his living perversely enough working with my own tribe Ngapuhi. He can pull a rabbit out of the hat unlike Hone Harawira who seems to be sending Ngapuhi further and further into the wilderness and quite apart from the Maori Party which is killing off kohanga reo but that is another matter. 
What I want to talk about which is what Kiwis are interested in is growth and jobs. It is a very educational experience to move into the part of Tamaki Makaurau otherwise known as Manurewa and Otara and see that there is a search party for the current member Dr Pita Sharples whose address can be found in the lost and found of the local community papers because he is never there. He has along with his senior colleagues in National no remedy for growth and jobs. That is why the policies introduced and being promoted on a regular basis by my senior colleagues—that is the tax switch—would enable us to reduce the impost of tax on the first $5000 a Kiwi earns through Labour. We would reduce it so it is a tax-free threshold. Why is that good? That is good because it reduces the administrative burden for students part-time workers and people in small-time businesses. They know that there will be less drama in giving a job to people in that category. 
How will we do that? We will introduce an element of fairness or dare I say equity so that those Kiwis who have done very well and who have amassed assets make a modest contribution as a consequence of the capital rise in their assets. That rise has little to do with the obligations of the investment they put in to run the operation of their enterprise. A host of other countries have this tax and they are doing a hell of a lot better than Kiwis are. It is not unreasonable that those of us who have the pleasure of owning an asset or three should make a contribution of this nature so that those who are at the level where the more vulnerable members of the community are found can be assisted. 
I come back to the very barren view offered by the Minister of Finance today about what National will do. As I have said before I accept that there is a case for investment portals and investment opportunities but we do not accept that the only way we can enjoy investment opportunities in New Zealand is by serving them up through the privatisation of our publicly owned energy companies. They will be surrendered not to mums and dads not to the Kiwis who are enjoying the opportunity of a bit of investment but to foreign investors. That is a very good public policy issue and an item of intense public interest. 
At what point will we stop worsening the tide of discontent associated with our current account deficit? At what point will we say: “Let’s use these assets and harness the development capacity to transform our own economy.”? Let us not surrender the direction the strategic overview of those assets to people who do not have a long-term invested commitment to the underlying structure of our economy. We want to effect a change through the retention of the ownership of those assets harnessing their potential and ensuring that they play a transformational role in our economy not watch them wither away whilst they serve the dictates and the imperatives of overseas investors who as we learnt with Telecom are interested only in gouging stripping and taking away the largesse to meet the expectations of shareholders who will not live here and who will not have a vested interest in the overarching national interest. 
We on this side of the House believe in a Government committed to a more patriotic approach and more focused on domestic strength ensuring that the structure of our economy continues to support exports. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 When the National-led Government came into power wanting to build a brighter future for all New Zealanders this country was already in recession. Well before the global financial crisis hit us the pre-election fiscal update told us that we were faced with never-ending deficits preceded by a 50 percent increase in core Government spending under the previous regime. 
The tradable sector—that part that our exporters and other companies have to compete with in the international market—was only about 30 percent of the economy. Since 2004 it had flat-lined. That is the part of the economy that earns us our wealth. The part of the economy that spends our wealth the non-tradable sector was about 70 percent of the economy. It does not take much to see the disparity and the imbalance that grew under the auspices of the previous Government. This imbalance has accelerated since 2004 when the tradable sector went into recession. 
We have taken responsible decisions to restrict the build-up in Government debt and get Government spending and finances under control. Because of the sense of the New Zealand public Kiwis are backing National’s action plan for the economy. They know we are responsible managers. We have only to look at the latest poll from Fairfax Media and Research International which shows that 49 percent of voters think National has the best plan to fix the economy. That is well ahead of Labour which is on 17 percent. 
The news gets even worse for Labour with only 48 percent of its supporters backing its plan to fix the economy. The Government is delivering its economic agenda based on a six-point plan to boost growth and create high-value jobs over the next 3 to 5 years. We are supporting better science innovation and trade; removing red tape and unnecessary regulation; delivering better smarter public services; investing in productive infrastructure; and lifting education and skills and we have created a growth-enhancing tax system. 
Think of a supermarket. Historically New Zealand has been very good at producing the items sold around the outside edge of the store: meat fruit and dairy products. The future of our industries particularly in the food and beverage sectors is to move a big chunk of our activities into the centre of the supermarket by making value-added processed and packaged goods. The food and beverages sector of the economy remains the linchpin of our prosperity generating $27 billion in 2009 or over half of our export earnings from merchandise traded annually. That sector directly or indirectly employs one in five of the working population. This is why we support the agricultural sector of our economy. It is such a generator of wealth jobs prosperity and growth for New Zealanders. In 2010 our exports to China rose a staggering 33 percent to $4.8 billion. 
We have introduced the biggest reform of the tax system in 25 years. It rewards work and savings discourages borrowings and consumption and significantly tightens tax rules on property speculation. Each year an extra $850 million is coming in through tighter tax rules on property speculation. We have rebalanced the tax burden. Treasury has done the calculations. It states that the entire tax package presented by the National Government as we heard the Prime Minister say today is effectively neutral in terms of distribution. 
In respect of GST let us not forget that the last time GST was increased was in 1989 by the then Labour Government. GST went from 10 percent to 12.5 percent. The only difference between then and now is that that Labour Government of which Phil Goff was a member did not compensate New Zealanders with a tax cut at the same time. That Government just took without giving back. Guess what? Labour is on the take again. 
We have turned back 2008 forecasts of never-ending deficits and soaring debt by setting a path back to surplus by 2014-15 a year earlier than projected. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 In the 1980s and 1990s New Zealand experienced a wave of change underpinned by the boneheaded idea that if Government took a hands-off attitude towards more or less everything free-market competition between unregulated companies would somehow magically produce the best outcomes for everyone. The theory was applied not only to goods and services but also to whole industries and areas of core public services such as electricity generation health and education. One of the casualties of this enthusiasm for deregulation was leaky homes. Ordinary people became the victims of corner-cutting and butt-covering by all those who could now get away with it. The same thing happened with finance companies and another casualty has been safety in underground mines. 
In 1992 the Government threw away the prescriptive mine safety rules that had been built up by the experience of many years underground. These rules were eventually replaced by requirements that mining companies take those safety measures that they found to be “practicable”. The idea of practicability has embedded in it the idea of affordability because a company that cannot afford a particular safety measure will find it not to be practicable with the result being that different mines end up with different safety standards. 
At the same time the triangle of safety—where companies workers and the Government all have appointees with particular responsibility for ensuring safety—was demolished by the abolition first of all of check inspectors and then by the dismantling of the Government’s mines inspectorate. Thus the National Government in the 1990s first of all radically weakened the rules for underground mine safety then dismantled the structures to monitor and enforce compliance. Sadly none of these changes were reversed by Labour in its 9 years of Government. Throughout all that time experts warned that that erosion of safety would result in the loss of life. It did so in 2006 and again last year. 
From my kitchen window I look out at the Paparoas where 29 men still lie. Every day that I am home I am reminded of my commitment that those men’s remains be brought back to their families that the investigation of their deaths sees justice done and that systems are reconstructed to protect all other underground miners from avoidable risk. 
I sat in on several days of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy during the first phase. The royal commission heard about some of this and about some of the practical implications. Evidence was given about woeful gas management in the Pike River mine a chief executive officer who had not seen the plan of the mine and concerns from the chief executive officer about inexperienced and unqualified staff. The royal commission also heard about the astonishing lack of provision for escape from the mine with Mines Rescue having warned the company that the emergency exit was effectively unusable in a fire and men were encouraged instead to use the fresh air base in the mine which had a capacity of just 20 men. It also heard concerns from Pike River Coal that New Zealand mine safety standards fall well short of their Australian counterparts and about the company’s concern that New Zealand had just two mines inspectors for the entire country with that number now down to one. The royal commission also heard the concern that a recently appointed inspector with electrical safety responsibility in mines had no experience of electrical work in underground mines. 
It is not good enough. We need change we need it now and John Key’s Government must step up to the plate and deliver it either by itself or in collaboration with other parties. The Green Party stands ready to play our part in improving mine safety right now. There is no case to wait for the royal commission to report as men go underground every day right now into environments that we know are not as safe as they could and should be. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up on the point made by the Green MP Kevin Hague about mine safety. I thought it was an indictment on the Government that the royal commission was told that they have pay and provisions for four mine safety inspectors yet they have only one inspector employed. That means there are three vacancies. I think the current regime of mine safety is inadequate anyway but to have an inadequate system of mine safety understaffed—to be at 25 percent of capacity when men are working underground in an incredibly dangerous environment—is wrong; it is utterly wrong. I think the Minister of Labour who currently says she will not be doing anything until the royal commissioner reports should act immediately and instruct her department to engage the other mines inspectors and have them on the payroll checking these people. 
I cannot think of a more dangerous environment to work in than to be underground. As the public of New Zealand have learnt the men who perished at Pike River were over 2.5 kilometres from fresh air and sunlight and 2.5 kilometres is a long long way. It is a long way when workers are in the heart of a coalmine underground in stone. Those conditions to put people in are very difficult and dangerous. Mine safety is inadequate and I think the Government has an obligation—a duty—to do something immediately. 
I will also pick up on the comments made by National members in relation to the general debate. We heard Tim Groser talk about deficits. I remind Tim Groser that for every year that the Labour Government was in office we ran a surplus. Every year we ran a surplus and we paid back most of the previous National Government’s credit card bill. When the Labour Government came into office New Zealand was getting close to having 40 percent of debt in relation to GDP but when we left office it was below 20 percent. The Labour Government left New Zealand in a very good space. The OECD report showed that New Zealand was an outlier in terms of having incredibly low Government debt. We had unusually low Government debt—an outlier—that was the state of affairs when Labour left office. Every year we had surplus after surplus after surplus. The only people who decried that surplus were over there. Bill English was constantly saying we should have tax cuts and give it all away—“Give it all away!” he said. 
Now that National is in office New Zealand has nothing but debt. We have gone from a $7 billion surplus to a $15 billion deficit. What is ambiguous about that? We have gone from a $7 billion surplus under Labour to a $15 billion debt under National. I would say that that is very poor management. What is the plan to get us out of it? What we have had is a tax switch. A tax switch excuse me is a switch in taxes between the poor and the wealthy. Let us get this clear: GST is a regressive tax in anybody’s measure. It affects the poor more than the rich because when poor people go and get 10 litres of fuel for their cars they pay exactly the same amount of tax on that as rich people. There is no difference except that poor people have less money. National uses percentages for everything but let us get this clear: 10 percent of an elephant is more than 10 percent of a mouse. When it comes to working people they get the mouse’s salary. When the Government increases GST on working people’s costs to 15 percent the costs for those people go up dramatically. But a 15 percent GST increase on fuel makes little or no difference at all for rich people; they cannot see the effect of it. The fact is that poor people in New Zealand are now much poorer. 
National does not want to talk about the poor but let us talk about the real poor the unemployed. Unemployment in this country has gone up under National and the biggest shame that National has is the amount of youth unemployment. The youth of this day are being left high and dry dispirited and with no hope of a job under National. The National Government has no plans. National members talk loud and long about increasing the amount of trade training but the fact is that the amount that National is spending on trade training is less than it was when Labour left office. It is less that it was when Labour left office. We have a huge amount of work to be done in rebuilding Christchurch and fixing leaky homes but the number of young people we are training in apprenticeships for the building industry is fewer than it was 3 years ago. That is an appalling state of affairs. We could be giving our young people skills and job opportunities but we are not because this National Government is devoid of vision and devoid of commitment to helping young people. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 6 July. 
Clause 14 Elected Councillors 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 14 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to remind those who have been focusing on this bill in some detail over recent weeks deals with the election of councillors to the Royal Society. Clause 14 is in fact an amendment to section 22 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. Section 22 of that Act deals with the election of councillors. In particular it deals with the electoral college system that makes up part of the Council of the Royal Society. 
To clarify this for the benefit of members the Royal Society of New Zealand’s council should be constituted according to the rules of the society by a president and six elected vice-presidents covering a range of areas of interest for the council and up to three co-opted members. The Royal Society councillors covering those particular areas are elected via an electoral college system. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Are you sure? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am and I am able to enlighten members that the establishment of the electoral colleges is done under the rules of the Royal Society. As I say they are discipline-based electoral colleges. There is a vice-president for biological and life sciences a vice-president for physical sciences mathematics engineering and technology and a vice-president for social sciences. Each of the discipline-based electoral colleges will be managed according to the rules by the council to consist of a grouping of members with similar interests. This is to ensure that the Royal Society council has a wide spread of membership that covers the bases of what the Royal Society stands for. 
The electoral colleges themselves are able to review how they operate from time to time but they are governed by the rules and these are the rules being amended in clause 14. In particular the rule being amended within clause 14 is about the length of time that a councillor can hold office. Colleagues will recall from earlier stages of this debate that although this bill is largely about the incorporation of the humanities into the Royal Society when representatives of the Royal Society came to me and then to the House they also said there were a number of minor technical changes. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Such a long time ago. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It was some time ago; that is true. But they are very pleased I am sure with the progress that we are making on this legislation. They came and said there were some other technical matters beyond the issue of— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Do you suppose he rehearses these speeches? 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh I think so. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No. No I can assure Mr Auchinvole that I do not. I can assure him they just come straight out—they come straight out. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: There’s a touch of spontaneity. 
Jo Goodhew 
: There’s some evidence of that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I think we have seen evidence of that; that is true. The elected councillors from the electoral colleges are an example of the technical changes that the Royal Society wanted. This change would remove the notion that no person may hold office as an elected councillor for more than 4 consecutive years and replace that with the statement: “No person may hold office as an elected Councillor for more than 6 consecutive years.” 
I think members of the Royal Society Council have found that although a 4-year term was useful actually for the long-term governance interests of the Royal Society a 6-year term was their preference. So that is what clause 14 does in amending section 22: it changes that notion that elected councillors can serve for no more than 4 consecutive years. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How many councillors? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: What was that? 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How many councillors? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: How many councillors? We can return to that; I did say that before. We have the discipline-based electoral college of the three vice-presidents who are the elected vice-presidents of the council. 
At the moment I can tell members of the Committee that the current elected vice-presidents are Dr Stephen Goldson representing the biological and life sciences areas and Professor Richard Le Heron who is the vice-president of social sciences and humanities. A very important point to note is that the Royal Society as part of the process of adopting the humanities has as part of the social sciences electoral college a vice-president for social sciences and humanities. This is another example of how the Royal Society is happily getting along with its business as Parliament goes through and debates these important changes. The other elected vice-president is Professor Geoff Austin who is the vice-president of physical sciences mathematics engineering and technology. They are the three elected vice-presidents of the council. 
Other members may be interested to know that the council is currently chaired by Dr Garth Carnaby—somebody whom people in the Chamber I am sure have had a lot of contact with and who is a very respected person. There is also Professor Michael Corballis and then there are representatives of the regional constituent organisations. These organisations have been discussed before in this debate. The regional constituent organisations are an important part of the Royal Society. In fact as we know one of those the Wellington organisation submitted against some of the changes in this bill so they do play an important role in the way that the council operates and it is obviously the composition of the council that is being amended in this particular clause. It is useful to know that those elected vice-presidents are there. 
In addition to the elected vice-presidents three elected councillors are on the council as well. Those three elected councillors currently are some eminent people: Professor Caroline Saunders Emeritus Professor Ken Strongman and as I mentioned before Professor Michael Corballis. They are the three elected at-large councillors along with the electoral college councillors. Those are the positions that are now able to be held under the change that we are proposing to a term of no more than 6 consecutive years rather than 4 consecutive years. 
I have to say that this is not a clause that was the subject of a lot of submission within the process. But it is an important change because the council— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Not a lot. Were there any? Were there any submissions? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There were a number of submissions— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Were there any submissions on this clause? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: On this clause? I am not aware of any I say to Mr Auchinvole. I was not on the Education and Science Committee. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: You weren’t on the committee? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No no but I am reliably informed that there were no submissions on this clause. However there were submissions on this bill as Mr Auchinvole will know. I thank him for interjecting and allowing me to talk a little about the submissions that came into the committee. The fact that these technical matters did not get a lot of analysis in the select committee is I believe an invitation for this Committee to study them in more depth. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are you criticising the members of the committee? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No I am not criticising the committee because the committee had a lot to deal with in other clauses of this bill. But this is one clause that did not perhaps get much attention. So I think it is worthy of debate that a governance body such as the Council of the Royal Society would want to change from a 4-year term to effectively a 6-year term. That will reduce obviously the turnover in elected councillors but the balancing consideration is that it will improve the continuity of work of the Royal Society council. 
Obviously the Council of the Royal Society is the body as we have noted before that is involved in the governance; the academy executive committee which was formerly known as the academy council deals with more of the direct scientific-based work—the decisions about who gets prizes and so on. But the council has that important governance role and by this change under clause 14 we will be enabling people to stay on the council as elected members for up to 6 years. I regard that as a change that is positive. On balance I am sure there may be members of the Committee who do not. There may be members of the Committee who feel that it should not go that way and I would be happy to entertain the views of those members. But on balance I believe that the work of the Royal Society council is such that it is an important governing body and having people able to serve for up to 6 years will allow them to represent the concerns of members. 
I will end this contribution by just making note of the fact that the area of responsibility of one of the electoral college representatives the representative of the social sciences electoral college now includes the humanities. That shows that the Royal Society is getting on and doing its work of incorporating the humanities into the highest level of its organisation. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is a motion that the Committee has to address so the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary No. The Ayes have it. Party vote? 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Does this pertain to the vote? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes it does. The question of reporting progress on a bill part-way through its consideration is one as a relatively new member in the Chamber where I would have thought a member would have to seek the leave of the Committee rather than simply move a motion to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I can respond to that. If members refer to Standing Order 177/1 it is quite clear: “A member may move ‘That the committee report progress’.” It is a procedural motion. The wording has to be accurate. The member fulfilled that requirement. The Committee then addresses the matter by a vote which is put immediately which I have done. I was going to call a party vote which we will now do. So— 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just seek some clarification on this. We have had only one speaker on clause 14 so it is highly irregular for this to have been proposed. I seek clarification on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is no instruction in either Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders as to how many speakers speak; any member at any stage can move that the Committee of the whole House report progress. The member has taken that option. The Committee now expresses its view on that procedure by voting. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Progress reported. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Report adopted. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the member in charge of the bill on which progress has just been reported I just want to seek your guidance as to the ability of a member in whose name the bill is to have any way of ensuring that a bill continues to progress. I would have thought looking at Standing Order 177 that the intention of that was around a member who may be in charge of the bill rather than another member in the House seeking effectively to foreclose debate on the bill for a day. I am not sure then of the exact intent of being able to do this. Certainly Standing Order 177(2) mentions the notion of what a member in charge of the bill would do but it does seem to me to be an unusual process to be going through. Obviously I am a new member and have not seen this happen before. But I do seek your guidance as to what rights a member in charge of a bill may have when another member seeks to foreclose the debate by reporting progress. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly reasonable point of order. Those who have been in this House for a while will well remember how this Standing Order is used. Any member although they cannot interrupt a speaker can when taking a call move that the Committee report progress. The House votes on that matter and it is the decision of the House to report progress. That is the end of the matter. The matter can come up again next sitting day. That is how the matter is handled. I do therefore set the bill down for further consideration next sitting day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move that the matter that has just been set down for next sitting day be brought forward to today again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure under what Standing Order the member is moving that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One does not need a Standing Order to move a procedural motion. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are three subclauses to Standing Order 177. The member moved the motion referred to in subclause 177(1). That is the end of the matter. The House has voted on it. She did not move a motion along the lines of what is in subclause (2). 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In the interests of making sure we do not make any errors here I will receive advice on this issue. The advice is pretty clear. The House has made a decision that the Committee reported progress and the House voted on that motion and made its decision. I have set the bill down for further consideration next sitting day and it is not available for consideration today. There is not a procedural motion available to change that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the matter that has been set down for next sitting day to be reinstated as a matter for today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 23 March. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House is in Committee for further consideration of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and consideration of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Members we move first to— 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move that the Committee report progress 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That decision has already been declared and I do not believe that the motion is in order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the Committee needs to just consider this. I will put the question again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That  
the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order 
. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before I seek leave for the Speaker to be recalled I would like you to contemplate whether you are fully up to date with the rulings of the House. In the old days in the days in which both of us have spent probably most of our parliamentary careers there was not an ability to move the same motion twice. That has been rescinded in a review of the Standing Orders. For example closure motions can now be moved a number of times. There is no requirement for there to be speeches between those motions. I would ask you to review your ruling now and if you do not I will seek leave for the Speaker to be recalled so that we can get a considered ruling on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been reflecting and to the best of the knowledge that I have in scanning the megabytes of the information I have I have made a ruling on the best information that I have with me at the time. I am confident that that is the case. That is why I have ruled in that manner. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s reaffirmation of his refusal to accept a motion to report progress a motion to report just having been defeated. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I just clarify whether this is a motion to recall the Speaker or the seeking of leave? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is a motion that has been moved. The member asked me for a reflection. I have made that ruling and subsequent to that he has again moved the motion and I guess that is in relation to the ruling that I have just given. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I just ask that he repeat the motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No he has just moved that the Speaker be recalled. It is as simple as that. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has determined that you should be recalled to pass a ruling on a ruling that I made. The Committee returned to the matters declared by you as you departed from the Chair as Speaker a few minutes ago. As I was announcing the bill that the Committee of the whole House was to progress a motion was received that we report progress. I duly put the motion. It was defeated 63 votes to 53 votes. I then commenced to read the process of what the Committee of the whole House would do and immediately the same motion was moved again at which point I ruled that the same procedural motion in the exact same words could not be put again. On that point there was a motion to report progress so that you could be recalled. It was defeated. I was then asked as Chair to reflect on whether my ruling was correct. I thought about that and to the best of my knowledge I thought that it was so I ruled that the same procedural motion could not be put twice. At that point there was another motion to recall you as Speaker to rule on the matter; accordingly we have come to that point in the proceedings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I just ask before you leave what the circumstances were when the motion was first moved to report progress. Did the member have the call to speak in the Committee? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I was just reading the bill. I was just getting to the stage where I would say: “When the Committee last addressed this matter we were on clause 6A.” I did not get as far as that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. The first issue is that the motion that the Committee report progress can be made only by a member who has the call. It cannot be made by way of a point of order. So it may be questionable whether that motion was actually in order at the time. As I understand it though that is not the crucial issue that I have been recalled to rule on. 
The interesting crucial issue as I understand it that I have been recalled to rule on is whether once the Committee has made a decision the same procedural motion can be put an endless number of times. This is an interesting issue of order. I well understand why you Mr Chairman ruled the way you did because normally once the Committee or the House has voted—especially once the Committee has voted—on a matter that is normally the end of that matter in respect of legislation. If the Committee has decided on an amendment that is the end of that matter. Endless further amendments cannot be put to try to overturn that decision. 
With this particular procedural issue I must confess that I am not 100 percent certain that the same rules apply. I will seek some advice on this one. What troubles me—and I will be honest with the House—is that Standing Orders provide for the Committee to make a decision to report progress for the report to be made and for the House to then vote on that matter. If we end up in a situation where endless motions can be put to the Committee to report progress which are all defeated we end up in a totally unworkable situation. That clearly is not in the interest of the House. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard before I seek advice on it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 As you are getting advice I say that you are absolutely right about the situation that would inevitably come about through what is probably in my opinion a gap in the Standing Orders at the moment. I think you will recall Mr Speaker as I indicated to the Chairman that in the past once procedural motions—for example closure motions—were defeated the Government could not move them again. Then there was a point later on where the same member could not move the same motion twice. That again is something that has been changed. It is my understanding that as a result of those changes the multiple moving of the same motion where it is a procedural motion is allowed. 
I make it clear that normally an Opposition would not contemplate that sort of approach but I think it is fair to say that the Opposition today is feeling somewhat aggrieved at a breach of the right of members to debate a bill that they would otherwise have preferred on this side of the House. As you are aware it is something that the House has jealously guarded—that is the right of the Opposition to have much more involvement in dictating the terms of the fortnightly members’ days. They are the few hours that occur for genuine members’ time rather than what would otherwise be the case. So it is certainly my view that there is an ability for members to do that. 
I accept of course that the first part of your ruling was absolutely correct—that is the fact that it should have been done by way of a speech and not by way of a point of order. I am sure that if you rule in a way that would indicate that there is something here for the Standing Orders Committee to look at if there is a gap in the rules I would think that that is acceptable. I am sure that in future the motion will be moved by a member who has sought the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It may be somewhat unusual for me to respond but the whole thing did happen quite quickly. I now understand the point that the Hon Trevor Mallard made. When he asked me to reflect on whether I thought it was in order—there is a pertinent difference between a closure motion not being accepted by the Chair in the Committee and a closure motion being defeated by vote. It is my understanding by all meeting procedure that I know anywhere that a procedural motion cannot be put twice. I saw that pertinent difference then I made the ruling accordingly. That is the rationale for my decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask for members’ indulgence while I consider the advice that I have been given on this matter. This is a serious issue because we risk bringing the House into disrepute if we end up in a bit of a shambles. The issue that you Mr Chairman have raised in relation to this matter is interesting: where a closure motion is put—and a closure motion is the one that normally can be put more than once—it is not able to be handled subsequent to the Committee making a decision. As Mr Chairman has pointed out the Chair can refuse to accept the closure motion and debate can continue in the Committee. Once the Committee makes a decision on the closure that is the end of the matter. That is an interesting observation that the Chair made. 
On other hand the Hon Trevor Mallard the shadow Leader of the House has pointed out that in terms of clear definition within our Standing Orders it is reasonable to suggest that our Standing Orders do not specifically cover this particular issue. The same-questions rule really applies to instructions amendments and bills where the questions are the same in substance. So in those circumstances with the House having made a decision that decision must be accepted. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I just— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard as I reflect further on it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is something that I should have said. I would just ask you to reflect on a similar motion that is regularly moved especially during urgency and generally by the Government Minister in charge of a bill. It is the motion that progress be reported on a bill and it be set down for further consideration presently. That procedural motion has been and can be regularly moved on the same bill. The bill comes back to the House and that motion can be moved again on the same bill. So if the question is that a procedural motion cannot be moved twice in the same day on the same legislation then there is clearly precedent for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interesting thing is that the logic of our Standing Orders is such as to enable the decisions of the Committee and the decisions of the House to be sensible decisions. That is the objective of most of these Standing Orders. In the case of the closure motion it is sensible that the Chair have the discretion not to accept it and that is why a closure motion can be moved more than once. But once the House has made its decision that is the end of the matter. With respect to reporting progress and sitting again presently it makes sense for that to be possible to be moved subsequently because circumstances may change so that the House can make a decision whether it wants to review that decision. 
The dilemma I have about this particular motion where the House has voted to accept the report from the Committee and the bill has been set down for next sitting day is that that is a clear decision of the House. When members keep attempting to move to report progress again when in this particular case the decision not to accept the report has been made it is difficult for me to argue that I should make a ruling that enables this House to go on as many times as there are members who wish to move that the Committee report progress even though the Committee may have made a decision. 
I have to think about whether if I rule one way or another I would be offending the ability of the House to carry on its business or constraining the Opposition’s opportunity on members’ day as the member suggests to debate the matters that members wish to debate. What I am inclined to do is to make a ruling—on the understanding though that the Standing Orders Committee will address this issue. 
I think that we need to address this issue to make sure that we do not get into this hole again. But I think that I should rule at the moment on the basis of our current Standing Orders—but I accept this is purely a Speaker’s ruling; there is no Standing Order that says this—that where the Committee makes a decision with respect to reporting progress that is the end of the matter for that period of consideration of that bill. It is not the end of the matter subsequently but the possibility of fine-tuning that a bit would be to allow for a further motion once further business has been transacted. For example if the Committee arrives at a new clause in the bill or a new part in the bill then the issue could come up again because further consideration further decisions have been made by the Committee. The motion then would not be negating or attempting to negate a decision the Committee has already made because the Committee has transacted further business so the circumstances have changed. I will hear the Hon Rick Barker before I rule finally on the matter but I fully accept that I have no clear Standing Order on which I can base the ruling. I am trying to find a sensible way forward that does not bring the House into disrepute. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was just going to address the point that you have come to. I started to take a point of order but you continued on. I thought the way you were describing it then that if a motion to report progress was defeated then a motion to report progress could not be put again until the bill had completed its passage through the Committee stage. I thought that was several steps too far. But what I think you have done is clarify the situation to say that if a motion to report progress is put at a certain point and the Committee decides against it then that is a matter for that particular part or clause of the bill that is being considered. Once the Committee makes another decision such as deciding to approve that clause or part the Committee starts on a clean sheet of paper again and at that point the House can reconsider the matter if it wishes to. I think that is quite a sensible approach to take. If it had been open-ended then we could have had a bill for which a procedural motion to refer it could have been prohibited for the time that the bill sat in that particular Committee stage of the whole House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very useful contribution and I thank him very much for that. I will refer the matter to the Standing Orders Committee to make sure that members have the chance to further consider this issue. In the meantime I will rule on this motion to report progress once the Committee has made a decision with regard to reporting progress while considering a part or a clause depending on how the bill is being handled in the Committee. If further decisions are then made with regard to that bill the motion can be moved again because the Committee is in a new phase of consideration. Logically matters have changed as the Hon Rick Barker pointed out and it is reasonable for the Committee to have the opportunity to reconsider the matter. I realise I am asking in some ways for the goodwill of the House but I will rule that way. I promise the House that I will make sure the Standing Orders Committee reviews my ruling. Should the Standing Orders Committee wish to change it that will be a matter that can come back to the House following the consideration of the work of the Standing Orders Committee at present. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a very good suggestion to refer it to the Standing Orders Committee but there is a certain time issue. The Standing Orders Committee has to complete its deliberations refer the matter to caucuses and then bring it back and establish the Standing Orders. In the interim I think it would be very helpful if tomorrow or the next day at your earliest convenience you could come back to the House with a written ruling as such. That would be very helpful so that we then had some clearer guidelines. We could refer to the written text of your ruling rather than have to hunt through  
Hansard 
 to find how this has been developed. I think that would be very useful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will give consideration to that based on what I have said to the House now: that once the Committee has made a decision on reporting progress the matter cannot be raised again until the Committee has transacted further business. I will rule that way for the present. Should I need to improve the wording of it I will certainly come back to the House with wording that I think can serve the House a little better. So I will rule that way now on the understanding that I will further consider the wording of that ruling and also that the Standing Orders Committee will have the opportunity to consider the substance of my ruling recognising that that will not be an immediate decision. But the work of the Standing Orders Committee is going on. It will report back to this House. That is the way I have ruled. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clause 6A Sections 229A to 229C apply to private training establishments 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move that the Committee report progress 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I listened very carefully to what the Speaker just said. I do not believe that the Committee of the whole House has transacted any process or business since he made that ruling so I am bound to overrule the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think if you had listened really carefully to the Speaker you would have heard that he said that the motion as previously moved was not valid because it was done by way of a point of order and not by way of a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is quite irrelevant to the point the Speaker made which was that no business of the Committee of the whole House has been transacted. I put the motion and it was defeated so I am ruling that the motion is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to report progress was out of order. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Mr Speaker you have been recalled for a further ruling. I proceeded to engage the Committee in the process of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I read out the stage the Committee was at and announced that the Committee would be addressing clause 6A. A call was immediately taken by Grant Robertson who then sought to move a motion that we report progress. I ruled that the motion was out of order in that no business of the Committee had been transacted. I listened very carefully to your ruling. The point was further made that the previous motion which I had ruled in order was made as a point of order and not as a call. I determined that the Committee had expressed its view irrespective of my making a mistake in relation to whether I should have accepted that motion but because the Committee had expressed a view on a motion and because a party vote had been conducted the Committee’s expression was quite clear. There had been no further business so I ruled the motion out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Chair has summarised the situation really well. It just goes to the question of whether the House’s ruling on an ultra vires motion is valid according to your ruling and therefore whether the Committee of the whole House has made a decision not to report progress if in fact it is considered as a motion that you have ruled in your earlier ruling it should not have considered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact I merely pointed out that it was perhaps not the appropriate way to move the motion. I did not actually rule at all. On this occasion I must support the Chair. Although the procedure of the Committee may not have been strictly correct no point of order was raised at the time to deal with that. Subsequently the Committee voted on whether progress should be reported and made its decision on that. The Committee then reported to the House. The Chair moved the motion and the Committee voted on that motion. The Committee made that decision and that is the end of the matter. It is my ruling that the Chair is quite correct to rule out of order the further motion because no further business had been transacted. The Committee and the House have made decisions and that is the end of the matter. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clause 6A Sections 229A to 229C apply to private training establishments ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.I move that the House do now adjourn 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is a motion that can be processed by the House as a procedural motion only when the House is not in Committee but is meeting as the House in full session. The motion is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to adjourn was out of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call the honourable Grant Robertson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 On the question of your calling Grant Robertson I move 
 That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Grant Robertson. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Sue Moroney. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Sue Moroney. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not helpful. The Standing Orders are quite clear that the Speaker has the right to call whomever he sees fit and by rotation. It is also I guess the right of the member to seek for the Committee to recall the Speaker so on this occasion I will put the question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Sue Moroney. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Moana Mackey. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.I move that the Speaker be recalled 
to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Moana Mackey 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have already dealt with the procedural motion on my right as the Chair to make that call so the motion is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move 
 That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the motion to recall the Speaker to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Moana Mackey was out of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call Allan Peachey. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Allan Peachey 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member is completely out of order. Can the member please point out to me in either the Standing Orders or  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 where I have erred from what Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders require in terms of the Chair and the Committee of the whole House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is not a point of order; it is a ruling. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well I am speaking to your ruling—if you are asking me to respond to your ruling by way of a point of order. Mr Chairperson it is out of order for me to give reasons when I give that motion and I think you know that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I do not know that. This is a means of order for the Committee. If members are making a point of order they should indicate to the Chair where there has been a breach of the rules of the House and that is what I am asking the member. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
:  
I appreciate the opportunity— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am now going to caution the member. If the member continues on the line— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down Trevor. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: —I am on my feet—I will require the member to leave; I will. I call Allan Peachey. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am hearing a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It has always been the right of any member in this House to move a motion seeking the recall of the Speaker. It has never been limited. Mr Chairman your limitation of it is new; it is a new ruling from a Chairman. There is a right for any member to ask the Speaker to review any ruling of any Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have sought advice and I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that I am conducting the Committee of the whole House in absolute accordance with both Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. It is not a point of order to say that the presiding officer should not have given the call to whomever at any point. So the member is quite out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have on at least five occasions in this House heard the Speaker rule on the question as to who should be given the call. Speakers have been recalled for that previously. Mr Chairperson I think on every occasion the Speaker has reinforced the right of the Chairman to make that decision. I have no doubt what the result will be but there is a difference between getting the right decision from the Speaker and the right of a member to recall the Speaker to have that decision made. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not going to put the question on the member’s motion. If he asks for the motion to be put again he will leave the Chamber. 
Grant Robertson 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I move that the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that a motion to recall the Speaker to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Allan Peachey was out of order 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think we are now getting all members following the same procedure. I believe that the Committee has expressed its will by a vote of 62 to 57 or whatever that it wishes to proceed with this matter. I will not tolerate members continually seeking to recall the Speaker for every single item particularly over who does or does not get the call. The member is out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you please explain to the Committee which of your rulings we are allowed to debate and have the Speaker come in on. Is it all of your rulings some of your rulings or only on the call? Mr Chairperson in the past— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Is this a point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it is a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is absolutely a point of order and it was just interrupted by Anne Tolley. Mr Chairperson could you indicate to the Committee which of your rulings you are saying are beyond the Speaker coming back which ones you have absolute rights on without challenge and which of your rulings are subject to recall? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is very simple. I have determined that the members in Opposition are trifling with the Chair and I will not be part of that process so I have ruled that with those resolutions—we have had several motions to recall the Speaker and nothing has changed. Quite simply members are trifling with the Chair and if they persist they will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
:  
I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that the member were trifling with the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have the right to move for the recall of the Speaker in respect of your ruling that we were trifling with the Chair. We were not trifling with the Chair and you ruled that I was. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will put that motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s ruling that members were trifling with the Chair. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Clause 6A Sections 229A to 229C apply to private training establishments ( 
continued 
)  
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I appreciate the opportunity to finally get on and open the debate on this matter. I invite Labour members to now engage in a debate on the issues which are very important issues. This clause is very much—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is speaking. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. I ask members to tone it down. I want to hear what the member is saying. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: This clause goes very much to the heart of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and to the mechanics of it. The basic issue is whether membership of students associations in New Zealand in 2011 should be compulsory. It is that simple; it is that black and it is that white. 
One of the questions the Committee needs to consider is whether university and polytech students—tertiary students—should be subject to a constraint on their freedom of association as a result of legislation of this Parliament. When that happens an individual’s right of freedom of association is being marginalised. I have to say— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that this is a robust debate but the constant barrage should be toned down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will deliberate on that matter. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I was making the point of asking whether it is appropriate that in 2011 tertiary students as a result of legislation of this Parliament should be subject to their right of association being constrained. This clause makes it very very clear that membership of students associations should be voluntary and at the will of the student not at the will of an organisation like a students association. 
For the life of me I cannot understand the fundamental Labour Party position. After all was it not a member of the Labour Party—who I think was a Minister at the time—who advanced the very same arguments that membership of the Real Estate Institute should be voluntary that are being advanced on this side of the Committee in support of clause 6. 
If members on the other side of the Committee are going to argue that university tertiary students should be compelled to belong to an association then it is incumbent upon them to explain to this Committee why a university student should be made by law to belong to an association—in other words have a constraint imposed upon their democratic right of freedom of association—when a real estate agent and for that matter a unionist is not subject to the same constraint. 
It is a very simple matter. This clause confers on tertiary students the same rights that every other New Zealander has in terms of their right to voluntary association. Why would anybody come into this Chamber in 2011 and argue that that constraint against the right of freedom of association of a tertiary student should be maintained? This clause makes it very very clear that membership of student unions should be voluntary. I commend this clause to the Committee and I urge the Committee to move quickly in order to get this business dispatched. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 During Mr Peachey’s call Tau Henare shouted out that the Labour members on this side of the Chamber were engaged in fascism by opposing this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Well I have news for Mr Henare. What we on this side of the Chamber are doing is protecting the National Government’s provision that was supported by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific and in fact advocated for by Mr Henare when he was in Mauri Pacific. We are trying to protect his work and he calls that fascism. That is what Mr Henare is doing. He is calling his own provision fascism. Mr Henare was part of a Government that came up with a solution that gave students associations choice. It gave students associations choice. I congratulate Mr Henare. He made sure there was a choice for students associations. If enough members of an association wanted there to be voluntary membership they could get a referendum through and then there would be a vote. In fact under this bill brought forward by Heather Roy that choice gets wiped out. The choice that Mr Henare put into the law is now wiped out as a result of this bill. The Auckland University Students Association went through that process. It is now voluntary. That choice is gone under this bill. One does not have the ability to make that choice as a student. So the fascism that Mr Henare accuses us of is actually his own work. We are defending his own work. 
Clause 6A applies the clauses of this bill to private training establishments. I think we have seen enough information in the media in recent times to indicate that the students involved in many private training establishments are in fact very vulnerable. We have seen a number of examples of students enrolled in private training establishments who have actually had their money ripped out of their pockets for very little return. The role of a students association the role of student movements within private training establishments is in fact becoming increasingly important. Value for money—making sure one actually gets a qualification at the end of the day—is an important part of what students associations do. Students associations are there every single day in institutions around the country making sure that students get value for money and that they can stay in their education. 
During the consideration of this clause in this part of the bill in the select committee process Mr Peachey Louise Upston and Colin King the National members of the Education and Science Committee heard the submissions—the overwhelming submissions—that said that we should keep the status quo. The institutions who came to the committee all bar one said “Please do not pass this bill. We believe in what student associations are doing.” Mr Peachey heard all of those submissions and he knew. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that they needed to do something to stop this bill from going through. They knew—perhaps with some mitigation something around more referendum opportunities or something around an opt-out clause for students—that that was a better option. Mr Peachey and Louise Upston knew that was a better option then all of a sudden that went out the window and National kowtowed to ACT. National simply went along with ACT. As my colleague Moana Mackey pointed out via interjection Paul Hutchison went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference before the last election and said that National would not support voluntary student membership and it would not support what is being done by clause 6A here today. That is what National said before the election but after the election that is out the door—just like GST not going up is out the door. The commitment of National to stick with a workable solution for students association membership was completely rejected out of hand after the election as part of a deal with the ACT Party. 
That deal with the ACT Party will mean that students right across tertiary institutions in New Zealand will lose the important advocacy and representation that is given to them by students associations. Be they in a public institution or a private institution students will lose the ability of those students associations to provide services because that is the real evidence of what happened in Australia when this kind of legislation was passed. Seventy-five percent of the services provided by students associations disappeared when voluntary student membership came in and there is no doubt that the same thing will happen here. The real vulnerability is not just for those students who are in polytechnics and universities but also for the ones in small institutions in small polytechnics and in institutions where there will not necessarily be some kind of contract for service between the institution and the students association. The students association will end up withering and dying on the vine and that will mean that those students do not have representation. 
Clause 6A refers to the changes that were made under clause 6 and quite clearly within those changes there is the substantive change that moves from a situation of universal membership to voluntary membership as outlined in section 229A inserted by clause 6. This was the area where compromise was on the table. This was where the Labour members were prepared to look for an enduring solution so that this does not flop around with each change of Government. Mark my words—under a Labour Government it will change back. We have said that in the minority report—it will change back. But what we could have had was an enduring agreement. Mr Peachey wanted an enduring agreement and that would have been one where we looked at something like more regular referenda or looked at an opt-out clause. That was on the table. But instead under section 229A that goes off the table and we move to a situation where the choice of students to decide whether membership of their association will be compulsory or voluntary—Mr Henare’s clause—is out. That has gone. 
Also within what has now been put in place in clause 6 for private institutions is section 229B on the question of undue influence. I have often wondered about this change. The provision around undue influence is so ill-defined as to what undue influence might constitute. Certainly I know that students associations right around the country will often run orientation activities which will include all manner of things that are part of buying an orientation ticket. Is the promoter of this bill seriously saying that undue influence could extend to whether an orientation ticket has some free beer with it or something like that? Is that the extent of undue influence? We do not know because section 229B is so ill-defined. The reason why I am raising that under this clause is that clause 6A applies section 229A through to section 229C to private training establishments. How will we know what undue influence is? What procedures will be in place to ensure that undue influence is not exerted? Section 229C inserted by clause 6 runs through the complaints process that people will be able to undertake in terms of undue influence but it does not give us any kind of accurate definition of what that influence might be. In addition to taking away the choice of students associations as to whether membership will be voluntary or compulsory what this does in addition is put in place an unworkable in my view situation around the question of undue influence. 
Another important matter that is now covered in terms of private training establishments by clause 6A concerns the reason fees can be collected. Section 229CA now tells us that “(1) No person is required to pay a membership fee to a students association or to pay money to any other person as an alternative to paying such a membership fee unless that person chooses to become or remain a member of that association.” It then goes on to say that “(2) A person who is not a member of a students association may not be required to pay a representation fee to that association for any services that the association provides generally to the institution’s student body.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are talking about clause 6. We are on clause 6A. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clause 6A applies sections 229A to 229C to private training establishments. To give it any meaning whatsoever we would need to discuss that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what you are saying. You must tie it back. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you Mr Chair. We are saying for students who are enrolled in private training establishments that should there be a situation in which those private training establishments accept some kind of an arrangement with a students association in those private training establishments the fee that was being charged perhaps by the institution directly to the student could not be for any kind of representational activity of a students association. To me that is completely nonsensical. We also now have the situation— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just been to the Table to look for a copy of the bill and there is no copy of the bill on this side of the Table. I do not think this debate can continue whilst there is no copy of the bill for Opposition members to consider. I suggest that this debate stop immediately until there is a copy of the bill on this side of the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are having— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That member walked across the Chamber without acknowledging the Chair. That is utterly disorderly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to sit down. I will rule on this matter. Although there might not be copies of the bill on the Opposition side of the Table and I appreciate the member bringing it to our attention the Clerk has asked for further copies to be delivered to the Chamber. However there are copies of the bill on the Government side of the Table. There is no requirement to have copies of the bill on each side of the Table just as long as the bill has been tabled and there are copies on the Table. The point has been made and we now have copies specifically on the Opposition side of the Table. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Hon Tau Henare walked across the Chamber without recognising the Chair and that is disrespectful to the Chair. I expect you to bring him to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. I did ask the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. Let us move on. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. While I was undertaking my point of order the Hon Tau Henare threw a copy of the bill at me. I do not think that is a very orderly manner for him to conduct himself either. If the member wants to help me then— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. The member has made his point well. I asked the member to resume his seat—to sit down. That is the end of the matter. The member has erred; I have told him to sit down to resume his seat and that is the end of the matter. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Sections 229A to 229C inserted by clause 6A apply to private training establishments. I note in my remaining seconds of speaking time and as other members take a call that Allan Peachey in his initial contribution on clause 6A did not mention clause 6A once. He actually talked only about clause 6 so I am sure it is a wide-ranging debate. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I do apologise for not acknowledging you Mr Chair. New section 229A inserted by clause 6 is headed “Membership of students associations voluntary” and states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” 
Moana Mackey 
: Wrong clause. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am sorry—wrong clause? No it is not the wrong clause; it is the right clause. Most people coming into the country whether or not they are aliens on reading that would think to themselves: “Oh crikey I quite like that. That means that my freedom of choice is enshrined. My freedom to be— 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Rick Barker has had his back to you for the last minute. I think he is being discourteous to the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that but this is getting to the state of being stupid and silly. There are many members in the Chamber in the course of a debate. The whips of parties have the ability to go and talk to their members. The Hon Rick Barker is the senior Labour whip and he has the right to move amongst his members. Raising these spurious points of order does not add anything to the debate so that is the end of the matter. The call has gone to the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is all about democracy. It is all about the freedom of choice. It is all about saying to people that if they want to join an organisation that is fine but if they do not they do not have to. There is no compunction for anybody to belong to an organisation they do not want to belong to. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why did you say you wouldn’t do this in the last election then? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well the member can have her shriek later on. The member can take the call have a little play around in the sandpit and pretend that she wants to protect a person’s choice. But look here is the deal: I say to members of Parliament— 
Moana Mackey 
: Why did you lie at the last election? Why did you lie? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —that if people do not want to belong to the Labour Party they do not have to. If they do not want to belong to the National Party they do not have to—and guess what? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am reluctant to do this because I am sure that it is the role of the senior Government whip rather than people on our side. One of my colleagues just called Tau Henare a liar. I think that is out of order and you should have rebuked her. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did not hear that comment— 
Chris Tremain 
: I didn’t either. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And nor did I. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did not hear that comment. Had I heard it I would have certainly—I ask the senior Labour whip because I am dealing with a point of order to please sit down. I did not hear that comment. Had I heard that comment I would certainly have acted on it because I have the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 open at that page. Let us continue. 
Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am a relatively new member to this Chamber but the previous Chair asked the Hon Trevor Mallard to leave the Chamber for trifling with the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No my understanding is that the member is entitled to be here and that is the end of the matter. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did make that comment and I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Now we are all friends again. She has apologised and my mana is intact. But I tell members what else is intact due to this bill and the good work of my colleague the Hon Heather Roy and it is the fact that students who go up to university on orientation day will not have to join an organisation they do not want to belong to. That is the crux of the matter. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about anything other than a person having the right to say “No I do not want to join your organisation.” That is what we are talking about and that is what new section 229A states. 
Labour members love to get up on their hind legs and say they are there protecting the rights of the innocent so to speak but I tell you what—this is where the ends of the political spectrum start to meet each other. Here fascism and the dictatorship of the proletariat—communism socialism call it what we will—start meeting each other and shaking hands. This is nothing more than Labour members saying that they know best and that they will tell people which organisations they should belong to. 
Grant Robertson 
: This is the member’s clause. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Grant Robertson can dance all around the topic but at the end of the day new section 229A states quite clearly that I do not have to belong to an organisation if I do not want to belong to that organisation. What more can you ask of democracy? Nothing! You cannot ask anything more of democracy on the right— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has been here for some time—in a couple of bursts I understand—and he knows by now that he should not refer to “you”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A number of members have said “you” during the course of the debates. I have not bothered to bring up members; I would rather see a free flow. It is a robust debate and I would like to hear some facts about what is pertained to in clause 6A. The member has a minute to go on clause 6A. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What is contained in clause 6A is the statement that if people are enrolled at a private training establishment they will not be forced to join the “student army” or student union. We all know that universities especially are the hive of Young Labour. They have to sort of “put it on”; they are Young Labour. But I tell you what: no longer will people be frogmarched into an association they do not want to belong to. No longer will they have to dress up in silly uniforms walk into an association and pay their fees—pay money—to belong to an organisation they do not want to join. That is what clause 6A tells us. It is about saying to people that they have a choice. It says that on this particular day the choice is yours— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member twice brought me into the debate. Having considered a point of order earlier I ask members to respect what the rulings are. Do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What an extraordinary contribution from the member who first drafted and passed into law the very provision that members opposite are now deleting. The very provision they are now deleting is the provision that Tau Henare drafted and passed into law. 
When he was on his feet I asked him the question why the National Party had promised not to implement this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and clause 6A—not to extend it to private training establishments. Why did National promise at the last election that it would not do this yet National members are sitting here tonight voting for it? Why? They have all gone very very quiet now because they know that there is no mandate for clause 6A. There is no mandate for extending these provisions to private training establishments. 
They are doing it because the ACT Party—a 2 percent party on a good day—cannot get the 10 percent support of students required to force a referendum. If an institution like a private training establishment wants voluntary student membership all it has to do is get 10 percent of its students to agree to a referendum and a referendum would be held democratically at that private training establishment to determine whether its students wanted to go voluntary. All that is required is 10 percent support but the ACT Party cannot get it so members are sitting here in Parliament today forcing through legislation that will be forced on students who have said democratically that they do not want it in their private training establishments. Mr Henare talked about everything under the sun and barely mentioned private training establishments. This clause extends the bill to private training establishments. The ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent support from those students to have a referendum to let them decide. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting. I noticed you signalling to the member to restrict her comments. I spent time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. I have on numerous occasions asked members to come back to clause 6A. Instead of standing and giving an order I often signal to members to come back to the point which is clause 6A. That is what we are debating. It is what I normally do. It is a practice I have followed for a long time. It is to just indicate to the member that they should be relevant and come back to the clause we are debating. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that is a good practice. It is one that good Speakers have used as well. The issue I have is that I could not see you all of the time while Mr Peachey was speaking but I listened to his speech from the Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I ask the member to resume his seat. I will determine the relevancy of speeches. I have brought members back to clause 6A. I will do it as I see it at the time. That is the way I have ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point I am getting to if I am able is a request for you to do that on a consistent basis. I was here for Tau Henare’s speech. I did not see you give that signal to him at all and he gave a history of the world rather than addressing the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did actually tell him to come back to clause 6A. I ask Moana Mackey to continue. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Clause 6A of course extends the provisions in clause 6 to private training establishments and that is what I have been discussing. The point I was making was that all that is required under current law is that 10 percent a measly 10 percent of students sign a petition to say that they want a referendum and a referendum will be held—10 percent. Apparently that provision is such a huge problem that we need to get rid of it and students do not want it yet the ACT Party cannot even get 10 percent of the students at a private training establishment to call for a referendum so that the students at that establishment can determine for themselves whether they want to be voluntary or compulsory in terms of their students association fees—10 percent. We could be standing here instead discussing as Labour wanted to whether that threshold is too high and whether private training establishments should have to get the support of only 5 percent of students to force a referendum. That is fine; let us have that discussion. But we are here in Parliament legislating over the top of the democratic right of students to determine for themselves whether their associations are voluntary or compulsory because the ACT Party could not even get 10 percent of students to agree with it. There is no mandate to extend this bill to private training establishments at all. There is no mandate. ACT is a party on less than 2 percent support—less than 2 percent. 
National members promised at the last election that they would not extend the legislation to private training establishments. They said there was no way they would support this. They gave that commitment to students. They said to those in private training establishments that they would not vote for this. So only a party with 2 percent support went to the last election promising this change—2 percent—and Heather Roy says she has a mandate to do this. There is no mandate. This is not about choice. This removes choice. It removes choice from students in private training establishments. It removes choice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’re going to free-vote on this. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Tau Henare interjects. This is the man who wrote this provision. He gave this great eloquent speech about why it should be gotten rid of and failed to mention the fact that he was the member who drafted it in the first place—he was the member. But that is Tau Henare. He can argue both sides of any argument. He can belong to any political party he wants to. He is AC/DC which is why he has belonged to so many political parties. 
This clause is bad news for students in private training establishments because it removes their choice. And this is from a so-called party of choice. Now there will be no choice as to whether membership of a students association is voluntary or compulsory. There will be no choice in private training establishments. Those students will have only the option that ACT the “2 percent party” wants them to have. It does not matter that in some cases they have democratically chosen that they want compulsory students association membership. That does not matter. It does not matter that provisions exist already for those who want to conscientiously object to do so. If the provisions that allow conscientious objection by students in private training establishments are not strong enough then let us talk about that. Let us have that discussion. 
That is what Labour wanted to do when we said we wanted to talk to Heather Roy and to the Government about finding an enduring solution for private training establishments—an enduring solution so that this issue does not become a political football. We were told no; no they did not want to do this. The “2 percent party” wanted to force this through because its members know they will never be able to force through referendums on the campuses of New Zealand. They know they have lost that debate. They know that the private training establishments will not support them in their ideological drive to get rid of political opposition and to get rid of the voices of students associations that might disagree with them. They know they cannot do that on the campuses of private training establishments so they have to come to Parliament to force through legislation that there is no mandate for—no mandate for—and that removes choice. 
I look forward to the next National speaker who gets up to speak on clause 6A and waxes lyrical about how great this measure is how fantastic it is and how great it will be for students. I want to hear from National members why then they promised they would not do this. Why then did they go to the last election promising not to vote for clause 6A not to vote for this legislation? Why did they go to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and say “National will not vote for clause 6A. We will not vote for this bill.”? That is what I want to hear from the next National speaker. They all get very excited about clause 6A but they fail to mention that they are breaking a major election promise by supporting it. They are breaking a major election promise. 
Hon Member 
: Major! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It was an election promise. Go and ask Paul Hutchison. He went to the New Zealand University Students’ Association conference and promised that National would not support this clause and National would not support this legislation. That is why Labour has been opposing this clause and this legislation so hard—because of the fact that there is no mandate for it. There is no mandate for it. Two percent of the country voted— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s called a majority. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh “It’s called a majority.” says Tau Henare. So why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand? If it is called a majority why can that not apply on the campuses of New Zealand so that they can have a vote which Mr Henare is interjecting and saying he should be allowed in this Chamber? Why is there one rule for National and Tau Henare and another for the students in private training establishments around New Zealand? Why? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We won you lost! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He says “We won you lost!”. Apparently democracy is important in this place but nowhere else if it does not suit Mr Henare. Well Labour members support democracy on the campuses of New Zealand. 
I feel sorry for Heather Roy that she was not able to get 10 percent of students to agree to a referendum. That must have been very discouraging. It must have been very embarrassing. She probably thought private training establishments were the area where she would get traction. Well she could not get 10 percent support. How hard could that be if this is such a major issue that we need to legislate over the rights of all students in order to fix it? 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Phil Goff can’t do it! Phil Goff can’t get 10 percent! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Ten percent I tell Mr Boscawen. Ten percent! That is all that ACT members needed to get on the campuses of private training establishments but they could not do it. They failed. They failed. So here we are in Parliament debating a bill that has no mandate which that party over there said it would not support. A party on less than 2 percent support is forcing this law change on all students even though they have said they do not want it and even though they voted on it in private training establishments and on other campuses around the country. They voted I tell Mr Boscawen and they said they wanted the choice. Remember choice? That used to be what the ACT Party was about. Not any more because if people do not choose what the ACT Party wants then it will legislate over the top of their rights. That is the true ACT Party. That is what those members are doing here in this Parliament. That is what they are doing in clause 6A which removes the choice of students in private training establishments to determine for themselves—rather than just do what the ACT Party thinks is good for them—what they want in terms of their students associations. What is so wrong with that? Well what is wrong with it is that there is an ideological bent on the part of the ACT Party to get rid of them. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. I would like to follow that fiery passionate speech by Moana Mackey. I think there is a parallel situation with the ACT Party. ACT on Campus and Student Choice could not convince enough of their peers on campus to reach that 10 percent threshold to get a petition because students quite frankly do not support the position of going to a mandatory voluntary student membership environment. We are seeing the same parallel in Epsom and down in Ohariu where the ACT Party which cannot survive on its own merits has to have the National Party stitching up a deal for it just like the deal we are seeing here. The ACT Party cannot get enough supporters to support it so it needs the National Party to stitch up a deal. 
I will refer to Tau Henare’s speech with regard to clause 6A about private training establishments. The member referred to the “student army” and the compulsion of rounding up students to join an “army” but when we look at Christchurch and the impact of the earthquake it was the Student Volunteer Army in which we saw students at their best. The students association was at its best helping out in the community. When we look at those students from the private training establishments who helped out in the Student Volunteer Army we see one of the best arguments for having a vibrant organised well-financed student body. 
Tau Henare also talked about students associations being a breeding ground for Labour politicians. But it is not just politicians who have come out of the students association environment. In fact former students association members form part of our press gallery. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
:  
I would not say that it gives me pleasure to speak tonight because I think this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a crock frankly. It is a piece of ideology that is looking for a cause. I want to speak on clause 6A which involves private training establishments. This clause pertains to the entire bill but this particular part looks at private training establishments themselves. 
I think there is a real issue here about the whole focus of what we are trying to do within this bill—that is the conceptualisation of the legislation is about a compulsory union. I want to refer to a submission made by David Caygill and his son which I believe contests that whole point of view. It effectively says that the student union is a union such as we would think of as being in a workplace. They said that this is the wrong conceptualisation altogether and that the student union is actually not that sort of a union. 
The submission states: “… students are not employees. They are not being compelled to belong to a students’ association in order to be allowed to take part in tertiary study. Rather they are being compelled to contribute towards a necessary and relevant cost of that study. In other words we would argue that the better analogy is not with membership of a trade union or professional association but with the payment of a tax.” 
I want to look at that in relation to the provision in clause 6A(1) to substitute “229CA” in the heading of section 229D. The point is that under section 229CA(3)(b) a students association can be “contracted by an institution or any other person to provide services to students of an institution.” This particular point is rather interesting because what we are looking at here is effectively the students association being contracted by the university which is normally the case. But the problem with that is that as we know the students associations will be paying for the services in order for the students association to continue by the university itself levying the students in order to be able to do that. 
This is not a free service. The role various responsibilities services and advocacy that the students associations provide are provided not free of charge but by the students association and the students themselves. But what happens as we know in just about every case when the students association is made voluntary is that students neglect to pay those fees and the association effectively winds up as an effective body for students. Then what happens is that the university or the institution itself—or in this case relating to clause 6A the private training establishments—takes over those responsibilities and again contracts students back to provide them because those very services are essential to the life and experience of students in a university or private training establishment. What happens is that the institution has to contract students as we see in section 229CA(3)(b) and students in turn have to pay through their levies in order for those services to continue. 
There is a problem with that at the moment. In the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) restrictions and limits will be placed on tertiary institutions being able to levy students in order to provide those services. We are in the middle of what I call a perfect storm. If this voluntary student membership bill goes through as it is students associations will effectively have no money to provide the services and advocacy they have been providing. The university or the private training establishments in this case will have to step in. The private training establishments will have to levy students in order to provide services but they will be restricted from doing that by the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). So as a result of that in a way both avenues for providing those services will be cut off. Both avenues will be cut off. The universities polytechs and private training establishments will become desolate places not the vibrant supportive places they are at the moment. 
That is particularly so in the case of the more than 300 private training establishments that exist in New Zealand that clause 6A relates to. In those places students often need to have stronger representation than they do in universities because many of the private training establishments as we have seen are perhaps not as professional as many other institutions. 
This bill could have been completely avoided. This bill was put up by Roger Douglas. It was passed on to Heather Roy when Rodney Hide sacked her as deputy leader of the ACT Party. Rodney Hide has since been rolled over himself. There is a certain pyramid of people being toppled in the ACT Party. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No one’s safe. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Certainly no one is safe in the ACT Party. We will now have Don Brash coming in and John Banks and we will see whether John Banks rolls Don Brash as a result. I cannot see the status quo continuing. 
As Moana Mackey says 2 percent of this Parliament is pushing through this piece of ideology. There is absolutely no way that ACT on Campus was ever going to be able to get this sort of bill through. There was no way that ACT on Campus was going to get 10 percent of the student body to vote on whether they want students associations. 
The absolute travesty of this legislation is that the choice of students in institutions has been taken away by us here in Parliament—not by us by the ACT Party supported by National—simply because those people who are peddling this particular piece of odious ideology have to do this because there is no way that they can get popular support in the institutions themselves. Not only that but the 2 percent the ACT Party holds is split between I do not know how many other people within the party sitting in Parliament. 
As I said before this bill is a piece of ideology looking for a cause and a purpose. Absolutely in no way will it do anything of value to our tertiary institutions throughout the country. It will gut them. It will make them mean soulless places like the leader of the ACT Party and like the ACT Party itself. It is going to make them soulless places where students will not be able to get support and will not be able to exert the influence and the advocacy they have been able to simply because we are looking at a piece of ideology trumped up as a cause. 
This is an absolute travesty. This could have been reconciled. This could have been solved by a compromise. We have put up a number of amendments. We have had a number of discussions about this. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a sorry sight. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Rather than Tau Henare for example coming— 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 We are talking about clause 6A “Sections 229A to 229C apply to private training establishments”. I have had a little bit of time in the university sector. I was a director of strategic development in a university so I know a little bit about the tertiary education sector. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
STUART NASH 
: Yes—and members on that side of the Chamber might learn something. With regard to private training establishments student unions are pretty much vital to the inner workings of these institutions in terms of how they cope. Typically a lot of students go to private training establishments because they are practical they offer a good course and often they are local. There are a lot of private training establishments around the country. I am not too sure how many. Does Mr Shearer know how many? 
David Shearer 
: More than 300. 
STUART NASH 
: There are more than 300 private training establishments around the country. These establishments provide an awesome service because they normally allow students to stay in the area where they grew up. If students want to become mechanics or do some sort of trades course they can go to a private training establishment. For a lot of people that is perfect. For a lot of people that is staircasing. It gets people into the education system. Sometimes they have not engaged with the education system or they have fallen out of the system. 
The private training establishment sector provides a very valuable service. Not only does it train people but it gives people confidence. It gives students confidence to re-engage in the education process and the sector. But what happens with this situation is that people who might have fallen out of the system at some stage are coming back in. These people may not necessarily be academically inclined or have much confidence in their own ability. They know what they want to do but they suffer from a crisis of confidence although that is probably too strong a term. They do not have confidence. They go to a private training establishment to gain confidence and gain qualifications. 
But where they gain confidence they also build comradeship. Often just as important as the qualification they get is the friends they make. Where do those students make friends? It is in the functions and confines that student bodies provide. That is why student organisations are so important. Often if people are new in a private training establishment they do not know much about anything. So they go along to the student union and meet people of like mind. They meet people on their course. They meet people who can mentor them—that is just as important—and provide support. 
It is my estimate that nearly every single person who is on a student body has been at that establishment for a while so they know how it works. They know what first-year students have to face and they know how to get around a lot of the problems that first-year students encounter. They deliver a number of very valuable services to many students. If this bill takes that away then it is taking away one of those important stepping stones that students need to continue along with their education. 
A lot of students get to the first month and they struggle a little bit. The first or second assignment may be due in and they are not too sure how they are going along. They may decide: “Oh shivers this is getting a bit too hard for me.” and they go along to the students association. They have a sit-down with someone who has been there before and knows what it is about and that person talks them through it. It is a mentoring role of sorts. What happens? I have seen this before. At the end of that course that student goes back to the student union and back to the person who has mentored them or provided support and says that without the support that was given he or she would not have reached the end of the course. That is what happens. 
The ACT Party says it is the party of private enterprise of getting people ahead of economic enterprise and of taking individual responsibility so it absolutely astounds me that it is actually ripping out one of the steps that provides those things. This bill takes away one of the vital support structures in private training establishments that allow students to get ahead. That is why this bill really surprises me. When I learnt that this bill was the only member’s bill put up by the ACT Party that may get through this House I wondered whether it would be the legacy of that party. 
Every student who goes to a private training establishment and drops out has Heather Roy to thank. Heather Roy—she can correct me if I am wrong—has five children. One of her children may end up being one of the students at a private training establishment who is supported by a student union but no longer will be. I do not know the age of her children. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Don’t bring a member’s children into it. 
STUART NASH 
: As for you we’ll get started on you. You keep quiet. Don’t talk to me like that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot bring the Chair into it in the way that he did. If the member reflects on how he used that particular pronoun it is quite out of order so please be careful. 
STUART NASH 
: My daughter or my son may be one of the students in the future that needs the support. But it is not about my children who attend private training establishments because clause 6A deals with private training establishments; it is about young New Zealanders who want to engage in education. They often go to private training establishments. 
Young New Zealanders often use private training establishments as a stepping stone to further their educational career and their professional and personal development. If this is taken away what do we end up with? We end up with a further hollowing-out of the education system that has started under that Government. I think it is an absolute disgrace. 
The only person who should be happy about this is the Minister of Corrections because she knows that when people fall out of society they end up in her prisons—and she is rapt about it. That Minister will end up with the largest portfolio in the country if this Government has its way. Members opposite call this success. I remember when Bill English said at a select committee that the Government was going to sell State assets. Shane Jones asked whether the Government was going to sell a power station to build a prison. Bill English said yes that is what the Government will do. 
I will finish up because I had only three points to make. The first point was that if we take away students associations from private training establishments then we take away the important support that students need to get through their qualifications. If this bill takes away the ability of student unions to be established and provide the support that students need at private training establishments then the community is worse off. Thank you. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a submission on behalf of the Otago University Students’ Association as supplementary submission No. 5. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. I call Todd McClay. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a submission from the Albany Students’ Association and its supplementary submission No. 7 to this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just to interrupt that point of order I think you omitted to rule that the submission not be tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If I did it was an oversight. So leave is not granted. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the submission entitled “The Association of Students at UCOL” which is supplementary submission No. 3. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. Leave is not granted. I make a point of clarification. The nature of the papers that the member seeks to table are they submissions to the select committee? What are they? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: They are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: They are; they are part of the record of the House. Yes they are. So I am not prepared to accept them as—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I am not prepared to accept the tabling of those documents as a process by leave because they are part of the record of the House and they are public documents. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the documentation that was provided by the Leader of the House to all parties on Tuesday morning this legislation was not included. This was not on the list of matters to be considered. Therefore members have not had the time or the expectation of going back and finding the particular relevant pieces from the select committee. It is my request that you look carefully at your ruling because members want to debate this seriously. There are points that the member has selected from the documents that have been tabled at the select committee in order to have the ones in which there is particular interest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: All that is very interesting but it has nothing to do with the point of order upon which I have ruled. All of these documents are on the website. Members have at their disposal the ability to bring into this Chamber electronic equipment that makes all of that available. Therefore I will not permit leave to be sought for the tabling of documents that are in the public arena. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s refusal to put a request for leave for a document to be tabled. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I gave the call to Kelvin Davis on the last occasion. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do believe that you already gave the call to Mr McClay. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I stand corrected. I apologise to the member and once the call has been given it cannot be rescinded. We progressed and Mr McClay never took the call. But chronologically what I did was to give the call to Mr McClay prior. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very reluctant to challenge your recall of matters but as I recall the situation two people stood to take the call and I took a point of order. You gave me the point of order ahead of Mr McClay. When I sat down the next person you called was Kelvin Davis. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just reflect on this for a moment. I respect the member’s call. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Todd McClay and I stood at exactly the same time. I called for a point of order and you gave me the call. You recognised me ahead of Todd McClay because I called a point of order. You did not call Mr McClay. Then when I sat down after you had ruled out my points of order on seeking leave you clearly called Kelvin Davis. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The senior Labour whip is correct. However when he had finished his point of order and you had ruled you gave me the call at that stage. You called Todd McClay to speak. That was the point at which you gave the call to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is my recollection so I will hear Todd McClay. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to take you back to the absolutely correct point that you made—that is once a call has been given it cannot be taken back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You might have been mistaken in giving the call to Kelvin Davis but you did. Once he started as he did you cannot stop him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well he had not started. That may well have been an error because one has to remember there has been quite a bit of activity to which my attention was somewhat distracted and I apologise to the Committee. But in reality the first person to whom I gave the call was Todd McClay. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to rule on the Chairperson’s awarding of a call to Todd McClay. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 42; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to refer you now to Speaker’s ruling 26/5 which states: “Once the presiding officer has called on a member to speak that member has the floor and cannot have the call taken away. This applies even though the principle of alternation or in committee the obligation to give preference to a member who has spoken less often is overlooked. It makes no difference whether or not the member has begun to speak; the right to speak applies from the moment the presiding officer calls the member.” 
What that makes clear is that even if you have cocked up the order or made a mistake in making a call once that call has been made it is very clear from that Speaker’s ruling that you cannot take it away even though as we have disagreed on Kelvin Davis the member has not spoken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am very familiar with that Speaker’s ruling and it is for that very reason that I believe the call should go to Todd McClay. I will take the call from him. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 If it would help Mr Chairman being a rugby man perhaps if you just blew the whistle and went upstairs for an instant replay we would see the order of how things happened. It gives me great pleasure to stand after my colleague Stuart Nash has given such a passionate eloquent reasonable and rational series of speeches on clause 6A. Members can be assured of the same sort of rationality from me as well. 
I will follow on from what my colleague David Shearer has said about the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is an ideological argument that if something is not broke I wonder why we are spending time here trying to fix it. We know that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. So why on earth do we need— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that this particular member is straying well outside of clause 6A. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Clause 6A relates to private training establishments. The rules regarding 10 percent apply to them as they do to others. It is a question of whether the rules that currently apply to them should continue to apply to them. The absolute essence of what is being debated here is whether they are in that set of rules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will rule that the member is still inside the boundary. I was not paying particular attention as I am processing quite a pile of amendments at the moment but I just ask him to bear in mind that he should be speaking to clause 6A. I am not accusing him of not doing that but I am just asking him to please contain himself in the future. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Chair because I was just getting to the private training establishment part of things. This legislation applies as we know to private training establishments as well. I forgive you Mr Chair for not paying attention to the eloquence of this speech. The reality is that the law already says that a referendum can be held if 10 percent of the student body agree to it. Why do we need to go through this now? By holding a referendum at private training establishments the students there can decide whether they want to be part of a students association. 
Shifting to what happened at Waikato University as an example when the students association was disestablished things fell apart. I was listening to the debate earlier on and Tau Henare was saying it was all about choice. Well he should tell that to students at a private training establishment who need a students association at a time of particular crisis in their lives. We know that students associations provide services of that sort for when students are in difficulties. That member should tell the students who turn up looking for help from a students association: “Sorry it has been disestablished. It has fallen over because of this bill that has been pushed through Parliament.” He should tell students in their moment of need that it is just too bad and that Parliament has decided to override the current law and change things. 
Why change it? Why change it went it is not broke? As Stuart Nash said private training establishments allow students to train in the area where they come from so that they can train not far from home. When people in the north like me wanted to go to teachers college the only option was to journey south for 3 hours to go to the nearest teachers college. It is great that students can train in the area around them. Why should this bill apply to private training establishments? Why should it apply at all when there is actually no problem? Who has asked for this bill aside from the ACT Party? The students do not want it. If they wanted it they would gather up 10 percent of the student body and ask for it. Instead here we are overriding what the student body wants. Why do it? What is the point of doing this and undermining the services that are provided to help students get through their training? 
We know there are a lot of difficulties. We know that students are often leaving home for the first time. They get introduced to all the vices that are out there and they need help often. They get into trouble with the law. I remember friends getting into trouble with the police. They needed help and advice from people and peers whom they trusted and the student body at Auckland College of Education provided that help when I was there as well as the social side of things. But I do not want people to think that students associations are there only for social activities because there is a lot more than that. Students’ physical and mental health and well-being are also being considered here. This bill threatens to take that service away and there is no need for it. Like I said 10 percent of the student body need to come together. All that a student body at a private training establishment needs to do is gather together 10 percent of its students who do not want it. If there is not 10 percent who do not want it what are we doing here? What are we doing debating this bill now? There is absolutely no point. Those members cannot even gather 10 percent of the student body to oppose compulsory membership. 
The other thing is conscientious objection. If students really do not want to be part of the student body at a private training establishment they can opt out of it. There is the conscientious objection side of this. As I said members opposite should try telling a student who is having social emotional or any other difficulties at a private training establishment: “Sorry we do not provide any services. We do not have any choice.” 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with the whanau? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Here we go. Students are often away from whanau and often many whanau are dysfunctional in themselves so what happens to students who are dysfunctional in themselves? 
Stuart Nash 
: The student body becomes the whanau. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Mr Nash to my right has a point. The student body does become the whanau for the student who is having difficulties. It is a pointless exercise to carry on arguing about this bill when all we need is 10 percent of the student body who do not want a students association to come together and have a referendum. 
Simon Bridges 
: Why is he still talking? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: But of course Simon Bridges over there has come in and made an utterly pointless rebuttal. He has suddenly joined the fray. He has woken up. He has had his nanny nap this afternoon. He has come in here and decided to jump up and announce his presence. Simon Bridges could not rustle up 10 percent of a student body at a private training establishment to object to students associations. With that I look forward to hearing what Simon Bridges has to say. I am sure that he has a lot of eloquence and passion to explain his thoughts. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and give somebody who knows what they’re talking about a turn. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I also acknowledge the contribution of my whanaunga Tau Henare who as ever has made a highly productive contribution to the debate. Kia ora. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to speak on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 6A of this bill basically applies the ideological initiatives in clause 6 to private tertiary institutions in New Zealand. It is not an insignificant clause of the bill because as a couple of previous speakers have mentioned there are over 300 private tertiary institutions here in New Zealand. Many of them will have a student body of some shape. It is a not insignificant clause because as I say there are over 300 private tertiary institutions in New Zealand. A significant number of those would have a student membership. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yeah what’s the point? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I will get to the point soon I say to Mr Henare. I will just talk a little bit longer than he might want to get to it. 
This clause opens up a window on the world of what a National-ACT Government looks like. It basically says that no matter where people are they are not safe. People at public institutions and at private institutions are not safe. Student membership of students associations really helps those vulnerable Kiwis who go into tertiary training who need support and who do not have the traditional methods or functions of support through their whanau. They may be training away from what was traditionally called home. They need that extra support and they are wondering about the kinds of support services that some of these tertiary institutions may have. They may be progressive like Canterbury University. Some of these private tertiary institutions may have a childcare centre on their campus. What will it mean for those students who will no longer have the ability to join a student body and have the support of a student association to fall back on to make sure that their experience at a private tertiary institution is a quality one and so they can complete and succeed in their course? 
A number of speakers on this side of the House have pointed out the simple fact that at the moment 10 percent of a student body can get together hold a referendum and disband the student union. 
Simon Bridges 
: Whatever. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: That is the case I tell Mr Bridges. He should have a look at the legislation. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whatever Trevor. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: “Whatever” is not good enough in this instance; it is a fact. Ten percent of the students can get together and disband the student membership. It has happened once before at Waikato University I understand and was a roaring failure for the students there. There was huge student debt and a huge debt for the council. In the end the student membership decided that that was not the right track to go down. As Kelvin Davis mentioned 10 percent is all they need but no one from ACT has managed to get 10 percent—just 10 percent; that is 1 in 10 students—to get together to force the disbanding of a student membership. So ACT brought this legislation into the House. Ninety-eight percent of thousands of submissions that came on the bill were against it but a party that is on 2 percent is forcing this bill through on purely ideological grounds. 
As I said before some of the services that the student unions have offered over the years have been crucial to the likes of Pacific Island students. I am worried about what happens to Pacific Island students who will no longer have that safety net of support via a student body that has supported those students who have found things difficult not only financially. Some of them may feel like they are fish out of water when they get to tertiary education. Those support systems for Pacific Island students are crucial for lifting the tertiary education achievement levels of Pacific Island students. I am very worried about what this bill will do in terms of the support available to them. Maybe the member in charge of this bill the Hon Heather Roy might be able to answer a question about whether any work has been done on what this bill might do for Pacific Island or Maori students and about some of the services they depend on that come out of student unions. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert new subclause 3 are out of order as inconsistent with the principles of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi to the heading to clause 6A be agreed to: 
to add “with 1000 or more students”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 6A be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(3)Section 229D is amended by inserting “except Imperial College of New Zealand” after “private training establishment” in each place where it appears. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The remaining 71 amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard are out of order as being substantially the same as the one that has been negatived—to add a subclause after clause 6A(2). That is in Speakers’ ruling 113/7. The amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi about a 50 percent poll is out of order as it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. The amendment in the name of Kris Faafoi about a chief executive holding a poll is out of order as it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6A be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 6A agreed to. 
Clause 8 Information withdrawals and refunds 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 8 is a continuation of what is clearly the agenda behind the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is not this rhetoric about choice. The excellent work Mr Henare did as the leader of Mauri Pacific to give students associations the choice of whether they would be compulsory or voluntary has been taken away tonight with this bill. 
We have a further example of that in clause 8. Clause 8 means that if someone enrols at a private training establishment there is now no way that a private training establishment is able to give them information about students association fees. The agenda is not about choice; the agenda is about— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t talk rubbish. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is exactly what the bill says I tell Mr Henare. That is exactly what it says. That is because the agenda of those promoting this bill is not about choice; it is about the destruction of students associations. One way of doing that is to make sure that information about students association fees is not available to those people who are enrolling at a private training establishment. 
This clause is instructive in relation to the whole question of what would be possible to ensure that we could get an enduring settlement around the question of students association membership. Members on this side of the Chamber know that in the discussions that took place in and around the Education and Science Committee it was quite possible that an enduring settlement could be found. 
One of those ways would be around what is possible in terms of withdrawing from membership as noted in the title of this particular clause around the withdrawal of membership. One possibility that was floated in that debate was the question of an opt-out clause a KiwiSaver-style clause that would allow students as part of their enrolment—and this is the very point of having students associations; it is part of being a student—to opt out of that if that was their choice. That was a possible compromise or solution to make sure that we were not as either a National-led Government or a Labour-led Government was elected simply swapping around over the question of membership of students associations. But National walked away from that deal; it walked away from the possibility that we might be able to have something around the withdrawal of membership which is noted within the title of this particular clause. 
This clause emphasises the point that the agenda being driven by the ACT Party is not actually about choice; it is fundamentally about destroying students associations. It is not about students actually having access to quality services and it is not about students having the ability to have advocates; it is about taking to students associations. It is an ideological agenda. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is it about? It’s about choice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare interjects as he has throughout this debate with “It’s about choice.” This bill takes away choice I say to Mr Henare—this bill takes away choice. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We won. You lost. Eat that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is a remarkable thing to have Tau Henare interjecting about a change to a bill that he created. He has now swapped over completely; he has flicked the switch and he has decided that the bill he brought in was fascism—the bill that he brought in. Does Mr Henare remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific? Does he remember? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? Sorry? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He does not remember when he was the leader of Mauri Pacific and he shepherded in the clause that tonight the Government and the ACT Party are taking away which is the choice of students associations as to whether they are compulsory or voluntary. 
The Auckland University Students Association went through the process the process that Mr Henare helped create and its members decided after a referendum that they would go voluntary. That was the choice that students associations and students had. Tonight this bill takes away that choice. It takes away the choice of students associations to actually decide whether they are voluntary or compulsory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It gives people choice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Henare is saying that it gives people choice. The option taken by the Auckland University Students Association is no longer possible with the bill that is being put through tonight. It is taking away choice. 
This clause is essentially making it impossible for information about students association fees to be provided to people who are enrolling at private training establishments. One of things discussed at the select committee was the question as to whether even if this bill went through it would be possible for students to be at least made aware of the services that were available and made aware of what students associations do. 
If members on the other side of the Chamber were genuine about the fact that they think students associations do good work which they told us they believed during the select committee process then they would have said: “All right we will give information to students when they enrol about what a students association does.” I say to Mr Henare that that would be a fair choice would it not? That would be a real choice—a choice made when people have all the information available to them about a students association. Clause 8 is saying that students enrolling at a private training establishment will not get all of the information about a students association; they will not know what the fees are. That means that the real agenda of this bill is exposed in this clause. The real agenda is to shut down students associations and to not give people enrolling—in this case at a private training establishment—information about a students association. 
Why would the people on the other side of the Chamber not want to do that? Why would they take away an informed choice for students? Why would they take away an informed choice? When students arrive at an institution they do not know everything about what a students association provides. They do not know about the welfare services the advocacy services the sport and recreation services the clubs and the health and counselling services. Students do not know about that when they show up on their first day. If they are to make an informed choice about whether they will join a students association as Mr Henare seems to want them to do why would they not be given information about a students association? Clause 8 is taking away that information. 
That is the question for Mr Henare: should students be given an opportunity under this new regime to make an informed choice about whether they join a students association? An informed choice would mean students would be given information when they enrolled about the services of students associations and about the fees that they need to pay and then they could make the choice. I ask Mr Henare whether that is not an informed choice. Should not students be given that option? No! Not even under this brave new voluntary world will students be given information. In fact the ability to do that for private training establishments is actually completely removed by this clause. 
The members on the other side of the Chamber stand up and tell us that this bill is about choice. That is rubbish. If this bill was about choice—informed choice—we would not have this clause in it. If this bill was about real choice for students associations then we would be sticking with the excellent work that Mr Henare did in the late 1990s which he has had a memory lapse about. He has forgotten about Mauri Pacific when he was in there making sure that students— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Say it properly man! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I did say it properly: Mauri Pacific. When he was leading that party he said that students associations should continue and should be able to advertise themselves and be available to advocate for students. Yet today Mr Henare arrives in this Chamber and says he has completely changed his mind from when he did that 10 years ago—he has completely changed his mind. Now students will not have the ability to have proper representation and to have proper advocates. They will not even be able under clause 8 to have information about students association fees. They will not even be able to have information about the services that students associations provide. 
This bill is not about choice. This bill is about an ideological obsession of the ACT Party now being facilitated by National. National members sat through the select committee process and heard the submissions of all bar one of the tertiary institutions in New Zealand who opposed this bill. The tertiary institutions know the value of students associations. The students who came before us know the value of students associations. The National members of the select committee know that. By the end of that submission process Colin King Allan Peachey Louise Upston—they all knew that this bill should not pass in its current form. They knew that and they knew that there were possibilities of creating an enduring solution that meant that this bill would not come back. But because of a deal between ACT and National this bill is being promoted by National members even when they know it is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] There is the deeply mature backbench of National taking the issue seriously I say to Mr Bridges! 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have the privilege of representing the good people of Dunedin North wherein lie more students than in any other electorate in the country nearly all of whom come from Otago University. Most of the remainder come from Otago Polytechnic and the remainder of those who are not in secondary school are from a number of private tertiary education institutions in town. 
The student body in Dunedin tonight is not best gruntled; they are not happy. The leadership of the Otago University Students’ Association does not think this bill the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is a good idea and they do not think the unusual behaviour in the Chamber this afternoon is good for democracy. They are about to express their viewpoint in the way that they know best as the days and weeks go by. They are not best gruntled. 
However what it does mean is that if this bill does go through then an important institution in the electorate of Dunedin North the Otago University Students’ Association will almost certainly become very seriously weakened. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because given the choice of freeloading given an opportunity— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am being invited by the shout-back host of a party in this House of Representatives Mr Tau Henare a man who has decibels sufficient to drown out a 737 to answer one question. He repeats it endlessly. It is “Why?”. Let me tell him. Given an opportunity— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come on tell me. Tell me I don’t know anything about freedom of choice! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He is not going to let me tell him. He wants to shout me down. Let it be said that I am being shouted down by a halfwit. A half-head on the other side of the Chamber has decided to raise his voice to try to stop me. It is silly stuff. It is silly immature boyish behaviour. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am compelled to bring some order at this point. I think there should be an exchange of ideas. I invite the member to do that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I was invited by Mr Tau Henare to answer his question. His question was “Why?”. Why would it be that on the passage of this bill the Otago University Students’ Association might become seriously weakened? It is an important institution in Dunedin. My answer is that given the choice to freeload most people will take it and certainly if they do so from a position of ignorance. If they arrive in Dunedin to undertake their study and find that there is an opportunity to reduce their fees by 100 bucks or whatever it is they will ordinarily take it especially when they do not know what they are missing out on. That is in the nature of collective responsibility. It is in the nature of collective provision. The Otago University Students’ Association is responsible for the collective provision of a vast array of services from medical services to social support services to advocacy services to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What stops them now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member opposite Mr Tau Henare has asked me again ‘What stops them now?” What do I do Mr Chairperson? I need your advice. Do I repeat myself? I do not repeat myself. Do I invite the gentleman to get another brain because the one he has got at the moment is lonely? Do I invite him to raise his voice still further? What am I to do? Let me see whether I can try this technique. Let me try to be the gentle cop and address my remarks to the member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy. 
This time I address my remarks to the Hon Heather Roy in respect of clause 8 of the bill. I say to her in seriousness that a case can be made that there is a mistake in this clause. Let me spell out my reasoning if I may. Clause 8 takes a section of the principal Act from memory section 236A of the Education Act and says in respect of one of the subsections let us remove the words “any students association fees”. In fact I will read clause 8 in case I have made a mistake. It states: “Section 236A(1)(a)(i) is amended by omitting ‘ and including any students association membership fees’.” What does this mean? One needs to go to section 236A of the principal Act which is the Education Act 1989 to find out. Section 236A of the principal Act requires every private training institution to basically be honest and upfront about costs. It basically says that when a student approaches an institution the institution has to tell them what all the costs are. 
Let me now read from the principal Act and show what the costs are that must be made available in black-letter law as it is at the moment. Section 236A(1)(a)(i) states: “the total fees for each course of study or training including fees for class or lecture materials books special clothing safety equipment tools and any other items that are or may be provided to students enrolled for that course and including any students association membership fees;”. Of course there may not be lecture materials. Of course a student may already have books from their older brother older auntie or something but if they have not the costs of those books need to be made available. They may already have the special clothing but the costs of the special clothing must be made available to them. The same rule applies whether or not they already have the safety equipment or whether or not they have the tools. So this subsection is a transparency kick. This subsection in the principal Act is a transparency kick. Whether the student will have to buy those things or whether the student wishes to buy those things including the student membership fee which will now be voluntary they are to be told in every case what the cost is. 
If clause 8 were to be passed the student would be told everything about the costs for his or her plumbing course English language course or whatever except any student association fee. Of course if there is no student association fee there is nothing to report or make transparent. But if there is there is no requirement for the private training establishment to tell the student about that. 
I wonder if we are on such a transparency-free formal freedom-of-choice kick whether we could require a private training establishment in the event of there being a students association which the student may or may not wish to join to have the cost of that students association membership made available to them compulsorily. I submit that it is inconsistent to say that any costs for special clothing tools or course fees must be made available but any costs relating to a students association fee if it exists do not have to be made available to the student. What is going on here? Surely this is a simple mistake? 
I ask the member in the chair what is happening to make it a matter of law that every conceivable or reasonable cost except any students association fee is to be made transparent. What is going on? It seems to me that ACT Party philosophy has stumbled a little at the edges. I wonder whether the member would be kind enough to give us the benefit of her wisdom as to why it is that the ACT Party legislation has done this. I do not see it as consistent. I do not think it is sensible for us to require in law as we have done for the last 20 years— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Right oh you’ve had your fun. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I just say to the Hon Tau Henare in brief riposte that if he would like to take the call and explain why it is that special tools have to be costed and provided to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Will the member take the call? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Will the member undertake not to provide the Committee with yet another closure motion? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll take the call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Ah so no undertaking is being offered. The member is asking me to sit down in order that he can attempt to shut down the entire debate and the question I reasonably ask goes unanswered by a group of people on the far side who have become specialised in the art of arrogance. Well I am not about to resume my seat without such an undertaking from the member. If he gave me an undertaking that he would attempt to answer this reasonable question— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh hurry up. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How boring. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Did I hear the member say that he would attempt such an answer? No. I heard him say “hurry up”. I say to the honourable member that it is inconsistent for us to decide that the costs of special tools special clothing safety and different fees must all be made available to the student but the costs of any students association fee need not be made available. That is inconsistent. It is not the transparency kick that the ACT Party prides itself on. I enjoin the member in the chair to take a call to offer us her views on that matter. I do not think the question is an unreasonable one. I think it does need to be addressed. I think the Committee would benefit were the member in the chair to let us know what she thinks is behind that or were she to seek advice from her officials in order to say what they think might be behind it. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was in the Chamber listening to the debate before the dinner break and I think the real reason for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill came from one of the National speakers. That speaker complained about students associations and this clause is concerned with students associations being full of Labour activists. I think that is really what it is about. 
It is true that our campuses are full of Labour and Green activists and many of those Labour and Green activists are involved in students associations and have traditionally been involved in students associations. The reason they are involved is that they are motivated by trying to help their fellow students to help people in New Zealand and often to help people overseas. They have been the core of many of what are now recognised as very commendable protests against apartheid against nuclear weapons against the Viet Nam War you name it over the decades. Often it has been the students associations the Young Labour and Young Greens activists the independent progressive-type activists who have a social conscience who have been involved in those activities which have led to such advances in New Zealand society and helped people overseas in places such as what was previously apartheid South Africa. 
As well as being interested in those political and social issues of course students associations with a lot of involvement of Labour and Green activists have been concerned with services for their fellow students. I think maintaining those in the best form is what we should all be concerned about. I do not think the speakers from National in particular have really answered the question of how we will maintain those support services in the best form if we go down the track of this bill. 
The very best of our society is people looking after each other be it amongst students be it in the community be it internationally and that is what our educational institutions should foster should welcome and should praise. It appears that is what the National speakers do not want. They want some form of individualism where everyone just looks after themselves be it for the good of or to the detriment of society. I think we are bigger than that. Parliament is bigger than that. 
Parliament should be encouraging people to be active in politics and well motivated. Many of the people in this Parliament and previous parliaments have cut their teeth in terms of social and political actions on being involved in student politics and often in students association positions. Looking around the Chamber right now I can see people who fit that category and that is commendable. We do not want to go completely the other way and be a mean society undermine student services— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does clause 8 say? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Clause 8 is about students associations and that is what I am speaking to. I am saying that it is important we keep in legislation a reference to students associations in order to highlight their importance and to highlight the importance of the people who are just reaching maturity and becoming involved in education also developing a social conscience that they will use not only while they are at university but in later life including in the politics in this Chamber. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will take another call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and in particular on clause 8. I follow on from what my colleague Pete Hodgson was talking about in terms of transparency. 
There are three aspects that are certain about the implications and the impact of this bill. The first of which is that the students associations will die and wither because that has happened everywhere else under similar legislation. Pete Hodgson gave the reasons why that has happened. The Education and Science Committee listened to the students associations of Australia where similar legislation came in and in practically all of their universities the students associations withered and died and became a mere vestige of what they were previously. What did they say to us? They said: “Don’t go down this path. It’s not worth it. It will seriously degrade the quality of life on campuses across your country.” That is what they said. All of them said that. They recommended that we do not go down this path. 
In Australia they are reinstituting students association fees. They are going back to what they had before. Why are they doing that? It is very very simple. The student services that were once provided by the students associations in Australia were being provided by the institutions. The universities themselves the private training establishments and the polytechnics stepped up and provided the same services that the students associations once provided except at a much inferior level of contribution. The students ended up paying compulsorily a fee to the university a fee to the institution to get an inferior quality of service on all the various aspects of student life that they missed out on before. That is a certainty. That is the No. 1 certainty of what will happen when we bring in this legislation. 
As I said before this legislation is a piece of ideology looking for a problem or looking for a cause. It is nothing more than that. There is absolutely no doubt that what will happen is that the institutions themselves the universities will end up having to levy students a fee which students will not have the option of opting out from as they do now—they are free to opt out and give that money to a worthy cause. They will not have that option. Why is that? It is because the universities accept as we all did when we went through university that this is not about providing services that are somehow optional or whatever. The creches the health centres the counselling centres the places of worship the sports clubs the cultural clubs the advocacy and all that goes with it provide the rich nature of university life. We all accept that it is not about a compulsory aspect; it is an essential part of an institution. 
This is clause 8 and an amendment will come through. If this clause is about transparency of information I would like to see us list what the students associations will not be able to provide as a result of this legislation—will not be able to provide. This legislation will take this away. Let us say that the students associations are no longer responsible at the particular organisations they are in for providing the creche. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I also want to— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Could be sanctimonious. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Would the member like to say that again loudly so I can respond to him? Was it worth responding to? 
Hon Member 
: No he’s too gutless to. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well come on say it I say to the member if he has the guts to say it. What was it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. A member must never challenge a member’s courage. That is a personal reflection and it is out of order. The member will stand and withdraw. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member will now continue. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am pleased to take a call about students association membership fees. Clause 8 does not provide for students coming on to a campus to have access to information about students associations so I ask what else a student will not have access to. It bears some thinking about. The member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy might like to take a call—I do not think she has taken one so far—to explain what students will not have access to. Anybody in this Chamber who has spent any time in a university will know what it is that a students association provides. It is so much a central part of university life: learning participation fun debates and everything else. If that is being taken away from students under the guise of this principle of choice I say to the member in the chair that sometimes it is possible to take a good principle to its illogical conclusion which is exactly what the ACT Party is trying to do with its minority share of the vote in New Zealand. It is taking a principle to its illogical extent by saying that we must now apply that principle to everything. 
What else will the member apply this principle to in terms of choice—to everything else in New Zealand society? In universities students through their participation in students associations—and that is about a lot of people participating—learn so much about life. They learn so much about learning and how to learn and they contribute enormously to the development of the academic life of the university. Are there many developments in a university many improvements that have taken place in teaching and assessing and indeed in the way that semesters are organised that have not started with student unions and students associations? Students have come together and reflected on their total experience then gone to their lecturers departments faculties and universities and made changes that have made the learning teaching and research experience as well as the contribution that a university makes to our society that much better. That is what this bill takes away and I cannot understand why the bill is necessary. It reflects such an amazing contempt for universities and an amazing lack of awareness of an important aspect of universities. That is what students associations do for students in a university. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Clause 8—“Information withdrawals and refunds”. Clause 8. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I will resist responding Mr Chairman in case you ask me to apologise again for responding to some comment that is so puerile it is not even worth— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Clause 8. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I say to the member that clause 8 is fundamental. If we do not provide students with an awareness that there is a students association fee then what are we taking away from that student? It is the ability to know at all about students associations. Let the member take a call herself and say that in her call. This is really about something fundamentally important but the provision is so illogical. 
I do not know whether Mr Tau Henare has ever been to a university and participated in student life at university. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a snob. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Yes I am a snob; I am proud to be a snob. I have spent enough time at a university. There are many people who through that experience have learnt to be better graduates and to make better contributions. I do not think that any one graduate sitting among members opposite who has been to a university and has participated meaningfully in student life will support these particular provisions because they come from somewhere and from someone who has little appreciation of that life. 
Let us take health services: where did health services in a university come from? Why were they developed and who advocated for health services in universities? It was the students themselves when they began to identify their own needs and bring together those things that would make services better. They also advocated for many of the facilities at universities; more latterly in the last 10 and 15 years it has been that focus on how to learn such as student support services. Through these kinds of services students have become better students better graduates and better researchers. Many of the childcare facilities at universities are there because of the advocacy of students associations. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call but I will take a call on clause 8 because the challenge from members opposite is about nothing more than snobbery. So what if I have not been to university? Whoop-de-do members opposite have been to university. We have heard really great stories about what universities have done and what students associations have done but not once did members opposite talk about the right of somebody to walk into a place and choose which organisation to belong to. I tell members what if membership of a students association was as good as that then people would sign up and join up in droves. If it was like membership of the National Party it would be damn good but if it was like membership of the Labour Party—falling and doing nothing—I would understand. 
When we have a debate about democracy and choice in this Chamber I love it when the Fabians opposite get up on their hind legs— 
Hon Member 
: The communists. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh look they talk about freedom and the rights of the individual but they want to force people— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Rubbish! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is not rubbish. We are not in Germany in 1933. We do not live in those times any more. Keith Locke talked about activism and the good old days of activism the Vietnam War the Springbok Tour and blah-blah-blah. This is 2011 and it is time that membership of a students association was made not compulsory but by choice. 
Like I say and I reiterate this point if membership was good and if it did what members opposite said it does then people would be lining up on orientation day to sign on the dotted line. But they are not. In fact thousands of students are forced into belonging to an association. I will give members an example. My son was signed up by a law not by the students association coming to him and talking to him about it. He was signed up and had to pay his money without a by-your-leave or a thank you very much. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Those members love it do they not? If that is the sort of democracy that members opposite love— 
John Hayes 
: More tax. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and if that is the sort of tax they want on young people fine. 
While I am on my feet I say that members opposite accused me of changing my mind. I have news for the Committee and I have news for the Labour Party. Phil Goff changed his mind on State asset sales. He is allowed to do that but I am not. What is the difference? I know what the difference is and the snobbery of Rajen Prasad and other members opposite about the fact that I did not go to university just shows where the argument is. I will close with this: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I will spend most of my time talking about an amendment to clause 8 that I have tabled but first it would be remiss of me not to touch on a few topics that Mr Henare spoke on just before I rose to my feet. Mr Henare says this is about choice. Well the students at both private tertiary establishments and mainstream establishments have a choice right now. If 10 percent of them are so fed up with the advocacy support and advice they are receiving from their students association they can mobilise and move to disestablish their students association by way of a referendum. But are they lining up? Are they lining up just like Mr Henare said? No they are not. Not even the ACT Party could get 10 percent of the student membership from any of the private tertiary establishments polytechnics or universities around New Zealand to get off their butts and mobilise against their students association. 
Mr Henare said if it was that good people would be lining up. If it was that bad people would be lining up too I tell Mr Henare. People would be lining up against their student membership. Do we see that at private tertiary establishments? Do we see that at our polytechs and at our universities? No we do not because on the whole these student bodies are doing a good job of supporting those students who need help from their students association which offer very important advocacy support services for student membership. 
We are debating clause 8 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 8 amends section 236A of the primary legislation by omitting “ and including any students association membership fees”. The amendment I have put on the Table seeks to amend clause 8 by adding to that: “and including students association membership fees that may have been paid by a student in whole or by way of instalments”. 
John Hayes 
: Boring! 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Oh that member might find it boring but he will wake up. Maybe it is because the member just woke up that he finds it boring. Some students associations do have the ability for members to pay by instalments. I guess that is a real bonus for some of the students who are at those institutions because of the way that the cost of living is going up at the moment. Students at the moment are feeling the pinch just like hundreds of thousands of other Kiwis. They would welcome the fact that they could pay their students association fees by instalment. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why aren’t they marching in the streets then? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Why are they not marching in the streets? That is a very good question that the member puts out there. They are not in opposition to students associations so why are they not marching in the streets? Why is this bill even here? Why is this even here; it is not even a problem for the majority of tertiary students so why is this bill before the Committee? It is pure ideology to the member in the chair Heather Roy. It is pure ideology. It is the tail wagging the dog; the ACT Party has power over National. I am sure a lot of the members on that side of the Chamber who have had some association with or some experience within students associations will be opposed to this bill but in this case ACT is the tail wagging the dog. 
I will come back to my amendment which will be voted on when we get to the end of clause 8. Those students who are struggling to make ends meet will now not have information made available to them by the private tertiary establishment about whether they can join a students association because clause 8 takes away the onus of the private training establishment to inform its students that they can join or be a member of the students association. I believe that is a tragedy for those students who really want choice and who want to have the assistance of a students association whether it be cultural whether it be educational or whether it be through services such as I mentioned before when an establishment has an early childhood education centre on its premises. 
Those students who are struggling to make ends meet at these private training establishments who might be looking at paying their fees on an instalment basis and who now will not be getting this information from the private training establishment really are relying on the advocacy and the services that students associations supply. I think in its whole this legislation will be detrimental to those students at the 300-plus private tertiary establishments that will be affected by both clause 6 and clause 8. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker. I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that he has put the motion incorrectly. I cannot accept it. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I caution members that when the votes are being taken they are to be heard in silence. Any movement at all or any speaking at all can be seen as intimidation and can lead to a breach of privilege in the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a number of amendments to this clause. The first amendments are in the name of the honourable member Sue Moroney and the honourable member Kris Faafoi. Those amendments are ruled out of order as they are not in the proper form. We have some amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. Both are direct negatives so the proper course of action is to vote against clause 8. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can we be clear about what we are voting on please? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that all of the amendments have been ruled out of order so we are now voting on the clause. The question is that clause 8— 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I could not hear you then; you were addressing National members. Could you repeat what you have been advised? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: These amendments are all out of order so we are voting now on clause 8. These amendments are out of order so the question now is that clause 8 stand part. 
Hon Members 
: Why? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the first amendments—from the honourable members Sue Moroney and Kris Faafoi—are not in the proper form; the other amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard are seen as direct negatives. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is normal that when a Chairman rules that an amendment is not in the proper form he says why it is not in the proper form. What is the problem with it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will find out. I am advised that the amendment omits words from the Act and you are not able to do that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The whole idea of an amendment bill is to change an Act. The idea that we cannot submit an amendment that takes further words out of an Act just could not possibly be right. The ruling is an interesting but somewhat farcical one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have taken advice on this particular issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In this case—because I do not think anyone in the Chamber has heard a ruling before that an amendment is not allowed to take words out of an Act—I move that the Speaker be recalled in order to rule on that question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before that happens I advise the member that the amendments change the words that are being omitted and you cannot change the quoted words. I am also advised that you cannot change the words “membership fees” to “membership dues”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is because “membership dues” is not the text in the Act so it cannot be omitted if it is not there. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not intending to trifle with either your ruling or your position in any way. There is a member of Parliament on the other side who thinks that I am; I am not. I am just not clear what is going on and I think I am entitled to be clear. After all if we are not clear the mistakes that we might be making will be persisted with. Can I be clear? I will put it as a question and see whether that is helpful. Can I be clear that your ruling is that the amendment you are ruling out of order is being ruled out of order because words that are already currently in legislation that the amendment seeks to remove have been misquoted and therefore are not in the legislation in the first place? Is that the essence of it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 8 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 8 agreed to. 
Clause 9 Transitional provision 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 9 is a curious clause. It is a clause that I did not think the ACT Party would ever promote because this clause could be called the “Two Classes of Citizenship (Two Classes of Membership)” clause. This clause will mean that on 1 January 2012—if the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill passes before 1 January 2012—there will be two types of students. One type of student will be those who are about to enrol for the first time at an institution. Those students will effectively come under the voluntary membership regime. Other students—for instance those students enrolled in a summer school who perhaps began their study before 1 January 2012—will continue to be members of a students association. That is what this clause does. It actually creates the confusion of two types of students being at an institution at the same time on 1 January 2012. 
Clause 9 seems to be a curious clause but then again it fits with the overall issue we have with this bill—that the bill seems to be not so much about creating the illusion of choice that members opposite would have us believe it creates but about making sure that students associations are weakened and then eventually destroyed. The effect of this bill will be that when students come to enrol after 1 January 2012 as is noted in the first part of clause 9 they will not be enrolled in their students association. So those students who show up and who are having to pay thousands of dollars in fees trying to get together the money for their bond for their accommodation trying to pay for their textbooks and trying to pay for all the other things associated with their course costs will now be told if somebody is there promoting what it means to be a member of the students association—although under an earlier clause passed tonight who knows whether even saying “Would you like to join the students association?” is undue influence now—that all of those costs will fall on students who arrive on 1 January 2012. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber tell us that people will just pay the money for the students association fee. That is the problem. Because there is no informed choice and students are not being given information about what it means to be in the students association—what services they get by being in the students association and what benefits there are for them from being part of that organisation—we know that membership will decline quickly. The evidence from Australia tells us this. Then we will get into the self-fulfilling prophecy that students associations are not able to offer the services to attract members and the associations will begin to wither away and die. That is the effect for those members of bringing in this measure on 1 January 2012. 
For those people who have already been enrolled in summer school and therefore their membership under clause 9 continues goodness only knows what kinds of services they are going to get. If the students association does not get the new income from the students who would have been coming in on 1 January 2012 goodness knows what kinds of services will be available. That is the problem with this bill. Although the rhetoric from members opposite is about choice the result will be the destruction of students associations and the services they provide. 
We have not heard a lot from Mr Peachey who was the chair of the Education and Science Committee. He spoke at the very beginning of this debate and I would like to hear from him again. I would like to hear him give us an honest assessment of what he heard as the chair of the select committee about the value of students associations. 
I sat through a number of the submissions as he did and we heard about the value of students associations. We heard about the students who were enabled to continue to study because of the advocacy and input of students associations. We had a fantastic videoconference from Waikato University where about the most apolitical student one could ever find—not in the category that Mr Henare likes to tell us about of activists in Young Labour and Young Greens; this was a completely apolitical student—came along off his own bat to say that if it had not been for the Waikato Student Union he would not have been able to carry on studying because of an incident involving an insurance company and a fire in a flat. The students’ union had acted as the advocate for that student. 
I would love to hear Allan Peachey get up because I know he is actually a— 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I have been following this debate very carefully from my office as a member of the Education and Science Committee who heard the submissions on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I am somewhat staggered at some of the comments the Opposition members are making. Clause 9 is about the commencement and the transition date of 1 January 2012. I think more than anything else this evening members opposite are petrified that this bill might actually pass and come into force. They have spent more energy fighting this than fighting any other bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like you to rule whether the word “petrified” is an appropriate term to use about members. We are not allowed to say “frightened”; there is a whole list of things we are not allowed to say. That is a much worse word. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not even flinch at the word. Much stronger language has been used. Members make disparaging remarks all the time about things like this. It is not a personal reflection. I will let the word stand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noted the member said we were referring to the commencement of the bill. That I think is in clause 2. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: No you are incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think she correctly referred to “transition”. It is clause 9 we are referring to and you should bring her back to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can the member speak to clause 9. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I was talking about the fact that the transitional arrangements come into force on 1 January 2012 and that is also the intended date for when this bill would take effect. That of course is what Opposition members do not want to happen. Clause 9 is a fantastic clause and I will tell members why. It means we are coming to the end of all of the Committee stage of this bill which is great news indeed. 
One of the things that has been sadly lacking in this debate has been the voice of the students. We have heard all about the students associations but not much about the students which is very common for members on that side of the Chamber. If we talk about education they talk about the teachers. They do not talk about the students and they do not talk about the parents. 
I want to talk about the students because I think they are big enough ugly enough and wise enough to make their own choices about whether they become members of a students association. Unfortunately members on that side of the Chamber do not trust students enough to make that kind of decision. Some simple transitional arrangements are built into clause 9 but the wider issue is the fact that students are entitled to have their choice just like with any other organisation whether it is a union Greenpeace or the Automobile Association. Voluntary membership does not stop those organisations from delivering the vital services that I know students associations provide. It is not about some ulterior motive that you guys think there is in relation to getting rid of students associations. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Sorry Mr Chairman. It is about the fact that clause 9 puts in place some sensible transitional arrangements for this legislation when it comes in on 1 January. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve been here for 5 years and you still can’t get it right. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: I am pleased that Mr Mallard thinks I have been here for 5 years; he has obviously taken lots of notice. He is taking lots of notice of this particular bill today because he is one of the members who so desperately do not want it to pass. 
We should talk to students and I bring members the voice of one student in particular. This Committee has talked about students who oppose this legislation and about the fact that there was overwhelming opposition to it in the select committee. Well I will tell the Committee about what happened with some students and I felt sorry for one student in particular. I got an email from this person about the legislation and I emailed in response. She then came back to me and said that she did not actually put her name on any email nor did she give information about her opposition to the bill; somebody else had done that. I was quite curious. I would be interested to know just how much of the supposed opposition to this bill came from that kind of email. 
I am bringing the voice of real students who are saying they want to be able to choose which organisations they are members of just like anyone else. Members on this side of the Chamber trust them. We believe they have the freedom to choose. If an association is delivering services that they value the students will continue to support the association. They will continue to support the association that is delivering services of value to them. That is why we do not have a concern like Opposition members do about the services that students associations or student unions provide. That is one of the things that has been so sadly missing in this debate. 
It is so important for us on this side of the Chamber to trust students to trust their choice to enable them to make decisions about whether they are members of a union and to ensure that they are able to make sensible choices of their own free will about how and where they spend their money. They should not be forced into a situation where they have to be members of a student union when they would not otherwise choose to be. 
A lot of people have been discussing this issue particularly on social media channels over the last few months while the filibustering has been going on with the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Those voices have been coming through loud and clear. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 In light of the remark of the speaker who has just resumed her seat Louise Upston that we need to hear the voice of students in this debate and have not I seek leave to table the submission of Ben Milsom on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 In light of the remarks of the member who has just resumed her seat that we have not heard from students in this debate and need to I seek leave to table the submission of Ben Nettleton on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 In light of the remarks of the member who has just resumed her seat that we have not heard from the voices of students in this debate and that we need to I seek the leave of the House to table the submission by Ben Sapau on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just in light of what the member across the Chamber is attempting to do I understand that the submissions he is proposing to table in the Committee have all previously been tabled in the House through the submission process and what he is trying to do is trifle with the Chair. This is superfluous to the debate in the Committee this evening. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that the submissions have not been tabled in the House but tabled in the Education and Science Committee. Therefore they have not been tabled in the House and the member is certainly allowed to do that. The Committee has an absolute right of course to decline to receive them but there is no doubt at all that this member has the right to seek leave for any action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 142/1 and 142/2. It mentions submissions to select committees where the e-committee system provides for them to be published on the parliamentary website. So it means that they are already available to the House. Therefore the member is unable to table them as they have already become part of the House’s records. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I make this point of order carefully. In light of the remarks of the member of the select committee who is also the member who has just resumed her seat that the voice of students has not been heard in this debate and ought to be I seek leave to table the submission of Benjamin Michael William Hocking on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not put that leave. The reality is that under Speaker’s ruling 142/1 these documents are freely available. I am going to call the next speaker. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to read to you Speaker’s ruling 142/1 and explain exactly what it does say. It states: “The primary purpose of the procedure for seeking leave to table documents is to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. It is not desirable for members to seek to table documents that already are available as part of the House’s proceedings such as replies to questions for written answer parliamentary papers select committee reports  
Hansard 
 or the Standing Orders.” That matter is absolutely clear and I agree with the report of the Standing Orders Committee. It was a unanimous report. It is not a desirable practice. But that Speaker’s ruling does not mean that a member cannot seek the leave; it states that it is undesirable. Much as I hesitate to suggest that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson is partaking in undesirable activity it is his right to seek leave to table those documents and although there is an indication here Speaker’s ruling 142/1 which you have quoted is not a prohibition. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In light of that submission to the Chair can I point the Chairman to Speaker’s ruling 142/2. The first sentence of that makes it very clear: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” Clearly these papers are available to the House on the website. They were tabled as submissions to the select committee. They are readily available. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again that matter is very easily dealt with. In respect of Speaker’s ruling 142/2 we need only to get to the second word “should”. It does not state “may”; it states “should”. If it stated that leave may not be sought then it would be clear. It would be absolute. The word “should” reflects Speaker’s ruling 142/1 which indicates a lack of desirability. The terms “should” or “should not” express an indication of desirability whereas if it stated “may” or “may not” then it is something that is a definite ruling. I remember Speaker “Turncoat” Tapsell in 1996 and a number of rulings he made that were innovative and different. But this one has stood the test of time and it was very deliberately “should”. If Speakers wanted to make it “may” they would have. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say—and all of us have been in this House for a long time—that the Speaker has done it in question time when he has not put leave if it has been sought to table documents that are available to the House. These are available to the House. The matter has already been dealt with previously in this debate. I saw that as I watched it from my office. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As you just pointed out you have been in this House for a while and so have I and we know one another’s proclivities. I leave it to you to decide whether I engage freely in undesirable activity in this House. You can make your judgment on that. I want to make a point to you as follows: the member who has just resumed her seat Louise Upston was on the Education and Science Committee. She came down to the Chamber from her office. She then took a call to say she had been outraged and appalled— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order should be short and to the point. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we are getting there. To say that although she was unhappy with the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members on my right that when a point of order is being taken it is heard in silence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You had an interjection from Dr Mapp as you sat down. You ruled on Sandra Goudie and you had another one and you did nothing about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I called the member to order. The member will be seated. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 So the member who had resumed her seat came to the Chamber in order to make a contribution not only about the poor quality of the Opposition debate as she saw it but also about this fact that students were not being heard in this debate and they should be heard. She made it with great particularity. It was on the basis of that that I decided to table the voice of students. It is true that the Committee has access to them through this or that type of information technology. There is no doubt about that and I agree with your ruling in that regard. But tell me then why a member of this House who was on the Education and Science Committee came down in order to say that that voice was not being heard. I am very happy to have it heard—very happy. And I am happy to have those documents tabled afresh. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point and I have made my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is my belief that Tau Henare in interjecting then was attempting to intimidate you—of course he could not possibly do that. While my colleague was taking his point of order Tau Henare interjected loudly to sit him down. That is just not on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his consideration of my well-being and I let him know that I am not intimidated by Tau Henare. I did not hear the honourable member anyway. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Committee is starting to slide down. I urge honourable members to recognise that this is a place of debate and that we should take it seriously. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am thankful for being allowed to take a point of order which I think is my right to take. I am very very worried about what we have seen in the Committee tonight. Members from the other side have constantly not only challenged the ruling of the Chair but also raised points of order that have been trifling which in itself is disorderly. They bring the Committee into disorder. I think that is a very serious— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 79/1. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I just got a tweet that said the Committee has been spending more time debating parliamentary procedure than it has debating this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It has sure been interesting. 
I had to rise to take a call when I heard the member Louise Upston’s speech because I too was on the Education and Science Committee. I was a student probably more recently than the member Louise Upston and I am still paying off a student loan. I had to take exception to her characterisation that this bill which will be passed tonight is the voice of students because that is patently untrue. We heard 180 oral submissions 98 percent of which were opposed to the bill. We received 4837 written submissions by students and the vast majority of them were opposed to this bill. We heard from editors and students. We heard from postgrad students and former students. We heard from students association presidents student radio DJs and student editors. We heard from institutions and from local bodies. They all vigorously opposed this bill because they know what the impact will be. 
It was interesting to hear from the member Louise Upston because hearing those submissions at the select committee from all those thousands of students was an important period. They were unified in their call to not pass this bill. The National members on the committee went into the hearings with an open mind. They heard the submissions they asked some great questions and we had some good discussions about what we could be doing about real transitional measures which is what we are debating now with clause 9. The real transitional measure would be a more explicit opt-out provision. 
The Human Rights Commission said of course that there is no issue of human rights and no problem here with the freedom of association. But what National members have done by deciding to vote for this terrible legislation is paint themselves into a corner. Now they have to come up with extreme comments to try to back up their position because the evidence is that students do not want it. I refer to the UMR Research poll of students which showed that 72 percent of students were opposed to the changes. The fact is that this bill is not a question of choice; this bill is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. It is damaging. What we are seeing now with clause 9 is a confusing mess. It is a confusing clause to go with a confusing and damaging bill. 
I ask the member in the chair Heather Roy to take a call to explain exactly why this transitional clause clause 9 is needed and what it will actually mean for those students who are currently enrolled or those who will enrol. I agree with the member Grant Robertson. If first-year students enrol after 1 January 2012—which is only 4 months away; let us not forget that this bill is passing so close to the start of the next university year; they may leave Gisborne like I did and go to the big smoke—those students will not have hundreds of dollars burning holes in their pockets not when they have to buy books pay bond and pay the other student levies that this Government is also administering. Many of these students do not know what to expect at university. They do not expect to need student advocacy support if they run into a lecturer who mismarks their grade or is abusive in class. They do not think they will need to use student medical services. They do not ever think they will need to use the student food bank. That is what first-year students do not realise when they first go to university. 
The fact is that because this bill is taking away the universal aspect of the student membership fees students cannot put their membership fee on their student loans any more. They have to put it on their course-related costs. Let us not forget that the course-related cost amount the $1000 that students can borrow each year has not been changed since 1992. That is as old as  
Shortland Street 
 yet students are expected to buy more with less and to now also put the student membership fees on their course-related costs. 
I invite the member Heather Roy to take a call to help explain this clause because I think a lot of institutions and students associations will be confused about what it means. That is quite a good example of how this bill is damaging and confusing. We are 4 months away from 1 January 2012. Most institutions and most students associations have already set their budgets for 2012 yet in a fit of irresponsibility because of National this Parliament is passing this bill which will damage institutions that have not been able to plan for adequate transition methods. We should be discussing instead—but we cannot because we are rushed—what the adequate transition methods would be if we were going with it. I would prefer a conversation about the opt-out provision which I think everyone could live with. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to some of the concerns that the previous speaker Gareth Hughes had. The clause that we are debating clause 9 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is about transitional provisions as we have heard from a number of members. One of the reasons that it is in place is that the member who has just resumed his seat Gareth Hughes implored the Education and Science Committee—I was on the committee at that stage—that this would be a good idea. 
Mr Hughes wanted a transition for those summer students who had enrolled in summer school in December and would carry on over as he did not feel it would be fair that they had two sorts of fees to contend with. In fact he felt it would not be fair to the students associations involved. He had general agreement from all of the committee that this was the fair and reasonable thing to do. He has stood up in this Chamber tonight and tried to pretend that this clause is a “confusing mess” so I would like him to take some responsibility for this “confusing mess” that we have before us. 
Clause 9 is not a confusing mess at all. These transitional provisions actually put fairness at the feet of the students associations to cover that summer school period. Once upon a time when the legislation was originally written summer school did not exist so this provision would not have been required. Many students now for convenience require summer school. It helps them get through their courses much more quickly and it is a very sensible provision. I hope that the Committee now understands exactly why we have this transitional provision. I fully support it as did Mr Hughes at the select committee but sadly he does not support it tonight. 
One or two other things that need to be addressed are issues that have been raised as part of the debate on this particular clause. One was Louise Upston’s comments about the email she received from a female student. Many of us received emails from students that were not actually sent by them. There were at least 100—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I can tell members exactly why. At least 100 were sent by the Labour Party machine Save our Services. The reason I know this is that it sent an email of apology to the Hon Peter Dunne who has given his permission for this apology to be talked about in Parliament tonight. Those members who think that this is not correct should speak to the Hon Peter Dunne. You can ask your friends at Save our Services— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson. They can ask the Labour Party’s friends at Save our Services as to why exactly students’ email addresses were used for anti - voluntary student membership emails to be sent to a number of MPs in this House. I think we all deserve an apology but most of all the students whose identities were stolen deserve an apology from Save our Services and from these MPs who seemed to think this was such a good idea. 
The last thing I will address which has been raised as part of this debate is the leave that the member Pete Hodgson tried to seek to table some of the submissions. Actually I would not have had any great objection to one of those being put forward. Ben Nettleton gave a very good pro - voluntary student membership submission so it would be great to have that on the Table. I am not sure why the member just stuck to the Bens but he did and Ben Nettleton’s submission was an absolutely superb submission saying why we need voluntary student membership. 
I look forward to the swift passing of this legislation. I am delighted that we are finally debating it again today. My final point is that Gareth Hughes said we have only 4 months left. The members on that side of the Chamber need to take responsibility for that—for filibustering this bill from 8 December last year. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Chairman the first point I will make is one directly to you to thank you for allowing a broader debate especially from Louise Upston and the member—I was going to say the Minister—in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill Heather Roy. I think if there was any justice in the ACT Party she would still be a Minister and a very good Minister in the education area as well. I think she was certainly the best and most effective Minister in the education group there has been in the time of this Key-led Government. I thank the Hon Heather Roy for the work that she did there. I assume she is still “the Hon” Heather Roy. I am never quite sure. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Yes I am. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It has been renewed? I am pleased the Queen has seen fit to continue the member’s honour—honorific at least. 
I think it is important to make some general points in response to the points the member has made and to make it very clear that members on this side of the Chamber want to have the voices of students heard and for them to be read into the record. If we are not allowed to table submissions then I am sure other members will be able to read into the record some of the submissions. 
There was a variety. There was a variety of opinions from students. Opinions were very heavily weighted in one direction but there were different views. I am never sure whether I agree with my old liberal friend Pete Hodgson who wants to be fair to young ACT supporters ACT on Campus and groups like that. I do not have that inclination in the same way but he is an old liberal and believes that views on both sides should be expressed and heard. That is why in response to the invitation from Louise Upston he chose to seek leave to table a variety of submissions. 
I am somewhat saddened that one of the submissions could not be tabled. Despite the fact that I disagreed with it substantially it was a well-written and well-argued submission. Heather Roy was one of the members who blocked it being tabled so that members who were not on the Education and Science Committee and are not familiar with it do not have the additional opportunity to look at it. I think she needs to take some responsibility for that. Of course I would have been much happier if the other submissions from the students associations which my colleague Rick Barker sought to table and some of the individual submissions which my colleague Pete Hodgson sought to table could be tabled. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Transitional provisions. Is that right? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I notice that the fishwife from Coromandel is interjecting yet again. 
Sandra Goudie 
: You’re meant to be on the transitional provision clause. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There she goes again—again and again and again—like an orange roughy on a hook. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is way off the mark in terms of clause 9. At the start of this speech the member did start to have a wider ambit but now he is so far wide of the mark that it is ridiculous. I ask you to call him back to order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am happy to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have some important points to make and questions to ask the member in the chair about clause 9 which I would like to do over the next three calls; I am on my first call on this particular clause. 
The first question is about the actual effect of this transitional provision. What does the term “until the expiry of his or her current term of enrolment;” mean? For example someone might be enrolled for a PhD and take 5 years to complete it. I am told that is not an unusual length of time. I think people at a lot of institutions can take up to 7 years without getting into trouble. Does that mean that in 5 or 7 years’ time there will still be people enrolled for their PhDs who came in under the students associations schemes before this legislation applied on 1 January 2012? I think postgraduate students are the ones most likely to have periods of enrolment that span a number of years. Most degrees are 3 or 4 years; it goes on. What if someone enrols for a BA honours degree and it is a 4-year degree? Is the expiry of the current term of enrolment 4 years? I was not at the select committee right at the point when they did the deliberations and made these particular changes but there are a number of points that I want to make as a result of those changes. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson Robertson. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? That’s the big question. Why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is Tau whining again? Is he whining again? He never stops whining. He never stops whining. He never never stops. I thank Mr Henare for assisting in the— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Take that pin out of your leg. Come on; hurry up! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that the House is a symbol of integrity and the integrity of all honourable members is to be upheld. Every person in this Chamber will be heard in accordance with our Standing Orders. Courtesy members is contagious. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairperson— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Courtesy is contagious and he sets the example—you’ve got to be kidding me! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member—what is her name—Sandra Goudie just referred to you to one of your rulings about contagions and said “you’ve got to be kidding”. Is that in order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not think the member was referring to me but can I just refer to the member on my right-hand side Sandra Goudie. She has moved in order to facilitate interjection. If she wants to persist in doing that she will go back to her own seat. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was about to raise precisely that point. Indeed I will now do so not in respect of the member for Coromandel but in respect of the member Tau Henare—who is the other loud-mouth of the eight National members over there and the other one of the eight who is not in the seat where he might normally be found. I wonder whether we can see a pattern here and whether we want to do anything about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am prepared to continue in the way in which I made the ruling. Mr Henare is not too far away from his seat and he has not moved in order to facilitate interjection. If he had he would be in the front seat here. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Twice while we were having a point of order there were two interjections: one from the Hon Pete Hodgson and one from the member for Mana Kris Faafoi. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I say that if you want to add to the list we could put Dr Mapp on it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Tatou tatou—together together. All right? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have no recollection of interrupting a point of order. I am sure Tau Henare has called me out correctly. I wish to withdraw and apologise to you and to the Committee. 
Kris Faafoi 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to withdraw and apologise to Tau Henare—it was correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Good man; thank you very much. Are there any more apologies before I call the Hon Trevor Mallard? Are there any more? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we are all sorry the member is here. We are all sorry that David Shearer is here—just to get that on the record—especially when we are debating this shocking legislation. 
The next question is: which organisation will rule on the questions that are in clause 9(2)(b)? Who will decide whether the provisions of the constitution of a students association that existed when the student last joined or rejoined the association continue to apply until the expiry of that period? The question I have then is: what happens to those students who might have transitional provisions that apply to them for 7 years or 6½ years if they were a mid-year enrolment and it went on and their organisation institution or students association no longer exists? How can they continue to pay fees to a non-existent students association and what can the rules be under clause 9(2)(b) for an organisation a students association that does not exist? How can they be the same rules? How can they be the same? It seems to me that they could not continue. In fact the more I look at this clause the more of a nonsense it appears to be. 
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.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.