Volume 683 Week 21 - Wednesday 29 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 21 - Wednesday 29 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4851. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 29 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Alcohol Reform Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Committee stage on Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill to take the form of an in principle debate on the issue of age for sale and purchase of alcohol from licensed premises and for the issue to be decided at 5.30 p.m. on Thursday 30 August 2012 by way of an election from the three options—18 years 20 years and a split age—and if this election does not produce a majority decision from the votes cast for the option receiving the fewest votes to be eliminated and the issue to be decided between the remaining two options by a personal vote without any debate; and for the Committee to report progress at the conclusion of the voting following which any amendments to the bill necessary to implement the Committee’s decision will be drafted by parliamentary counsel. 
I further seek leave that in the event that there should be a second vote required the bells ring for just 1 minute between the declaration of the vote and the commencement of the second bell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Child Poverty and Living Standards—Reports 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he seen recent reports on the level of inequality and child poverty in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes. I have seen a recent report that says: “A parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.” That is why the Government’s welfare policies have an unrelenting focus on work and I look forward to the member’s support for them. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government has spent the last 3 years ensuring that it has done whatever it can to help the most vulnerable New Zealanders through.”; if so why is inequality at its highest level and why has child hardship increased from 15 percent to 21 percent? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The inequality of income in New Zealand is measured in different ways. If you take the report that is produced by the Ministry of Social Development on page 81 it shows that inequality was greatest during the years 2000-05. We have not got back to those levels. But on the following page it shows a different picture. What I would say is that this Government has recognised as these reports do that the global financial crisis has put stress on those on the lowest incomes and therefore we have had programmes in place to try to make life a little easier for those people. 
David Shearer 
: In light of that answer does he agree with Paula Bennett who said last week that she did not believe that measuring poverty was a priority; if so why? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes the Minister for Social Development is correct; because there are so many different ways in which it can be measured. What is absolutely clear is that the best way of removing child poverty is to ensure that there is parental and caregiver employment. 
David Shearer 
: In light of that answer does this mean he has abandoned his view that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty should “have an official way of measuring poverty” something he said earlier this year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Far from it. I think the fact that there are so many measures out there that give all sorts of pieces of information— 
Hon Member 
: Pick one! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member over there calls out “Pick one!”. That is something those members cannot do when it comes to getting a decent leader but I will have a go on this. If I pick two in the report by the Ministry of Social Development on page 81 a report showing that during the period 2001-05 there was massive— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a pretty straight question. I asked whether he was suggesting that he could have an official way of measuring poverty. That was something that he actually mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that is what the member actually asked. If I remember correctly it was to do with—I think in fairness the Minister did actually answer the question. He has perhaps now gone on for a little long but what he said was “Not at all.” He did not—what is the correct word I am looking for—he did not resile from the previous statement made and he was explaining why. But I think he has gone on for sufficiently long. 
David Shearer 
: In the four meetings that the Ministerial Committee on Poverty has held what decisions have been taken to improve children in hardship? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I would suggest that the member put that question down to the chairman of the committee. What I can tell you as a member of Cabinet is that there are regularly discussions in Cabinet about this particular issue. 
David Shearer 
: Which statement does he stand by: “we have a very targeted system through Working for Families.” or that Working for Families is “communism by stealth … It didn’t work very well for Eastern Europe and it won’t work very well for New Zealand.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Both are true statements. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do the reports that the Prime Minister has seen include any reports suggesting that the imposition of an inefficient and poorly targeted capital gains tax and the increase in the top tax rate to merely spur further avoidance and evasion opportunities will do anything to reduce the level of poverty in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Economic Programme—Economic Growth and Living Standards 
2. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government doing to encourage economic growth and raise New Zealanders’ standard of living? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has taken a number of very important steps to support sustainable economic growth based on more savings and exports rather than unsustainable growth based on consumption debt and property speculation. Some of those steps include rebalancing the tax system with higher taxes on consumption and property speculation and reducing taxes on work and savings improving education standards and skills increasing investment in science and innovation better incentives to get more New Zealanders off welfare and into work a multibillion-dollar investment in infrastructure delivering better public services reducing government costs on business and last but by no means least getting the Government’s own finances in order by setting a path back to surplus which provides a stable macroeconomic environment to assist competitive businesses to have confidence to invest and grow. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Are we seeing positive signs of growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In the midst of a very deep global downturn we expect volatility and low growth as we are seeing around the world economies. So against that backdrop I was pleased last week for example to see the latest monthly overseas merchandise trade figures showing that in July the value of exported goods rose by 8 percent to $4 billion which helped the country record a July trade surplus. Exports to China rose by 39 percent led by whole-milk powder. Merchandise imports were up by 11 percent over July last year. These are the kinds of figures that help indicate that volatility month to month notwithstanding the country is on course to growing a stronger economy. Of course this follows the March GDP figures which the Opposition does not want to know about which showed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Question time should not be an opportunity to make mini-speeches. The Minister’s answers tend to go on a little long. I am sure he will claim he has got lots to talk about. Despite that this is question time. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: How does economic growth help reduce poverty? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Poverty is reduced in households where adults are in paid work. More than half of the children considered to be living in poverty are in benefit-dependent households. That is why the Government is very focused on economic growth. Growth gives people the confidence to start businesses and grow their businesses to hire more people and to pay higher wages. That matters because although issues around persistent poverty are complex and interrelated what is very clear is that paid employment is the most significant factor in lifting a household out of poverty. 
David Shearer 
: Given that paid employment is so important for reducing poverty why is it that 40 percent of those people in paid employment are in poverty and will he agree to lift the minimum wage? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member may not know but it is very difficult—in fact impossible—for Governments to legislate their way to prosperity. The only way that you grow wages and actually secure opportunities for more jobs is to give businesses the confidence to invest and grow and actually add jobs themselves. That is actually done by making some decisions that give businesses opportunities in New Zealand in areas like for example intensification of agriculture oil and gas exploration and dare I say it convention centres. All of those things assist to provide the opportunities to grow incomes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given his admitted concern that primary sector export growth has been adversely affected by the highly inflated value of the New Zealand dollar how will the Business Growth Agenda—his third economic strategy in 4 years—address this problem? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I would argue that the Government’s economic approach is addressing the problem because what we have seen—notwithstanding as the member has pointed out pretty high rates against the US dollar in recent times—is very significant growth in exports over the last 4 years. I think from memory it is about 5.5 percent for goods exports and 4.5 percent in total. That is notwithstanding some of the challenges where areas like the tourism industry have been hit hard by things such as— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Minister to tell me how his Government’s plans intend to address the volatility or the inflated value of the New Zealand dollar which the Government has admitted. I am not asking about all the rest. How do his plans intend to fix up the volatility of that dollar? That is the direct question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s point is fair enough. That is what the question asked and I think the Minister was not really focusing sufficiently on that aspect. The Minister started by saying that he believes that the Government’s policies are addressing that issue and went on to talk about exports rather than actually the value of the New Zealand dollar. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the point I was making was that actually exports were growing notwithstanding the volatility and highness of the New Zealand dollar. My point to the member would be that in fact there are no effective means by which Governments can do that. There are many people who promote options by which they can do that but for a small and open economy like New Zealand’s doing the sorts of things that are advocated by the member and other members of the Opposition would actually effectively be a one-way bet against world markets that are much much larger than New Zealand. I would suggest that a much more productive approach is looking to improve the environment so that competitive businesses can compete and succeed in the world environment that we have today. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: What programmes is the Government undertaking specifically to support the least well-off New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has worked very hard to maintain support for the most vulnerable New Zealanders during the global financial crisis and of course the economic impacts of the Christchurch earthquakes which are substantial as well. We have maintained indexes of benefits to the Consumers Price Index to maintain their real value even through the recession. Similarly entitlements to Working for Families have been maintained broadly through the recession. We have also strived to improve the quality of publicly funded health services that can assist vulnerable New Zealanders—for example with initiatives like free after-hours general practitioner care for under-sixes the increased participation in early childhood education increased immunisation rates and reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever and making a major drive to improve house insulation. All of those things are supporting the least well-off New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he be confident that the Government will meet its export growth targets given that his latest economic strategy—the third announcement in the last 4 years—contains no plan for increasing the value of primary sector exports and no plan to address major skill shortages? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member has misread the document. He will— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’ve read it all right. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No he has not read it because— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Nothing at all. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well that is because it is one of six documents and one of the things that is addressed in future ones is primary resources and skills. If he had even read the first page he would know that. Fundamentally if you want to see further exports in the primary sector which the Government is certainly very focused on we need to achieve some things such as the modification of the resource management framework to speed up decision making—and I look forward to the member’s support on that. We also need further capital investment in our primary sector industries. That comes from domestic capital investment and also international capital investment. I look forward to seeing the member’s support of international capital investment in the New Zealand economy. 
Incomes Household—Changes Measured in Household Economic Surveys 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the change in real equivalised median household income (before housing costs) of New Zealand households from 2009-10 to 2010-11 as measured in the Household Economic Survey in dollar and percentage terms? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Over that particular time period real equivalised median household income fell by $900 or 2.7 percent. The report notes that this is a direct result of the global financial crisis and the recession so it should come as no surprise to members. The measure is quite volatile and in six of the last 14 observations it has fallen. This means that the long-term trend is very important. Since 1994 for example real equivalised median household income in New Zealand has increased by 43 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer the Minister has just given that median incomes fell by nearly 3 percent in the years in consideration does he agree with the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 3 on 28 August that said: “Median income in New Zealand has risen.”; if so why does he consider a 3 percent drop to be a rise? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the point is over what period of time the median household incomes have increased. The member has—[ 
Interruption 
] No the member has selected a period from 2009-10 to 2010-11. He has to look back only a couple of years prior to that to see that it has actually grown. But the fundamental point is that there has been a global financial crisis. I know that on “Planet Labour” it did not happen but out here in the real world it did and that has undoubtedly had an impact on the growth rate of people’s incomes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the Minister’s reply that it was all the fault of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake can he explain to the House why he thinks that the global financial crisis has increased the average and the income of top income earners while decreasing the median and the income of bottom income earners? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The incidence of the impacts of the global financial crisis has occurred with different effects across the income spectrum. I freely acknowledge that. That is largely because there are fewer jobs in the New Zealand economy and we all know that because those numbers have been there and the unemployment rate as we know has been at 6.7 percent to 6.8 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How about those tax cuts? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually tax cuts do not affect people who are on benefits. What affects people on benefits is the opportunity to obtain a job which means encouraging businesses to have confidence and grow which means creating opportunities to do so such as intensification of agriculture gas and oil exploration—all those things that the Opposition shouts down. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer he has just given that the tax cuts had no impact on the level of upper income earners why does he believe that policy changes that gave tax cuts to the top increased GST on the rest and cost the country a deficit of an extra $1 billion over 4 years— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s just factually incorrect. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —it is factually correct Minister—have not impacted negatively on median incomes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well the member makes about four or five propositions that are frankly incorrect. He runs a question that is: “Given this which I believe given this which I believe and given this which is rubbish what do you think?”. The answer is this: the tax changes that we made were broadly equivalent across the sector. Yes some individual elements of them have different effects. [ 
Interruption 
] They do not want to hear it but it is true. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister has addressed himself to the precise nature of that question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Where members insert what they claim to be fact into question the risk they run is the Minister may dispute them which the Minister did and that is perfectly legitimate. 
KiwiRail—Condition of Sleepers 
4. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I think the issue about the sleepers is being over beaten-up.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. Safety is KiwiRail’s key priority and KiwiRail advised me that it would not be running services if safety had been compromised by damaged rail bridges tunnels tracks or sleepers. KiwiRail has a number of measures in place to manage rail network assets. At the core of this management practice is safety. 
Brendan Horan 
: Have KiwiRail staff been told to replace rotting sleepers with “visually sound” sleepers given that a report on inspection standards presented by national structure maintenance engineer Graham Boorman stated: “The internal condition of hardwood timber is required to be ascertained by inspection boring.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are 6 million wooden railway sleepers across the New Zealand railway network. Of those sleepers 100000 have been imported from a source that does not meet the Australian hardwood standard and 7000 have been found to have some degree of decay. There is a replacement programme. The staff are required to confirm by presumably looking at a number on those sleepers that they are meeting the Australian standard. There is a court case currently going on with the supplier of the 100000 sleepers that are potentially difficult and there are only 7000 of those that are being used across a total of 6 million. Yes they are being replaced. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member— 
Brendan Horan 
: If I might repeat the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume his seat for the moment. I apologise to the member but that kind of interjection when a point of order is being heard is not on I say on this occasion to the National Party backbench. 
Brendan Horan 
: The question asked whether given that the ascertaining of the internal condition of hardwood was best done by boring into the wood he would not then instruct KiwiRail to use this method when inspecting sleepers instead of the “visually sound” test outlined in internal memos. This is a question of safety— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. The Minister replied by saying that it was not realistic to do drill tests on a million—what was it I cannot remember—6 million sleepers. So he did answer the member’s question that in fact that process was it seemed from the Minister’s answer not something the Minister supported. That seemed a reasonable answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked simply whether KiwiRail staff had been told to replace rotting sleepers with “visually sound” sleepers. That is the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member has got a right to raise issues. I invite the right honourable gentleman to check the  
Hansard 
 because I am absolutely confident that was not the question. The member went on and inserted a whole lot more information about what was alleged to be in a report. If members want questions answered keep it succinct to that kind of question. Sadly his colleague added a whole lot more to the question than that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect my colleague asked whether rotting sleepers were being replaced with visually sound sleepers given that there was a report saying that the sleepers should be test bored before being used. That is simply adding information; it is not asking a second question a supplementary question or an additional question. It simply asked: “Was there an order for rotting sleepers to be replaced with ‘visually sound’ sleepers given that there was a report saying they should be inspection bored?”. That is pretty clear. He did not add anything else to it. I do not need the  
Hansard 
; I have got the question here. It was targeted to make sure it passed even your inspection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the right honourable gentleman but I heard the member insert a whole lot more into his question. I could have assisted so much more if the member had asked just a simple question: “Will replacement sleepers be required to be tested by whatever?”. That is a straight question and I can make sure the Minister if it is in the public interest will answer that kind of question. But where a whole lot more stuff is put in members run the risk of Ministers being able to pick on some of that and dispute it and that is the end of the matter. I dearly would like to be able to help the member but I cannot turn the wheel back and say to the Minister: “Look the member meant to ask this and therefore I think the Minister should answer that.” I cannot do that. I have got to work with the question actually asked. The member has a further supplementary question. If he asks a specific question I will make sure that he gets an answer. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first question I asked was asking about the replacement of the rotting sleepers. It was in the point of order that I actually gave the additional information but the first question was quite succinct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand it the member has two further supplementary questions. I understand what the member is trying to get and he has two questions to get it. I urge the member to ask the supplementary questions keep them succinct and let us get the answer. 
Brendan Horan 
: If public safety is important to the Minister why is KiwiRail facing a general structures inspection backlog in the South Island with some sleeper and culvert inspections being many years overdue? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Largely due to neglect by a previous Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister believe that ascertaining the internal condition of hardwood used in transport structures is best done by boring into the wood; if so will he instruct KiwiRail to use this method— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is as bad as submarines in Cook Strait. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: And this is the man who got fired from his office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Look I say to David Bennett that I am on my feet. Members will be silent. The National backbenchers know that if they interject like that it will lead to disorder which is not going to be helpful to anyone. I just ask them to please be patient. The member was asking a perfectly fair question and I want to hear it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister believe that ascertaining the internal condition of hardwood used in transport structures is best done by boring into the wood; if so will he instruct KiwiRail to use this method when inspecting sleepers instead of the “visually sound” test outlined in internal memos? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first point I make is that there are many engineers who will tell you that boring a hole into a beam is likely to weaken its structure so I do not think that is a particularly smart idea in every case. Secondly I would point out that every sleeper laid in New Zealand since the inception of New Zealand railways has been placed as a result of visual inspection. The third point I would make is that there are 6 million sleepers across the network. They are all supposed to meet the Australian hardwood standard; 100000 do not and 7000 of those are already placed and will be replaced because they do not meet that standard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a KiwiRail internal memo from Graham Boorman dated 5 April 2012 stating that the boring test should be undertaken unlike what the Minister has just said. 
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. 
Transport Planning—2012-15 National Land Transport Programme 
5. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent announcements has the Government made around transport investment? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I just say to members to please be a little more reasonable on interjections. They have just been too loud today on my left. Please be a little more reasonable. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Earlier today I launched the National Land Transport Programme 2012-15 which details $12.28 billion of transport spending over the next 3 years the largest 3-year transport spending programme in the country’s history. The programme focuses on key areas like economic development road safety and reduction of congestion. The Government is committed to making important investments while getting the best value for taxpayers in this big infrastructure spend. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: How is the Government showing its commitment to public transport? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is investing over—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] Listen I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] Can Ministers on this occasion please be restrained. How can I ask the Labour front bench to be interjecting less if I have Ministers carrying on like that? Please members be a little more reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it was but was it not one of the Government members who said he is not as bad as Paul Goldsmith? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the House has had its fun. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is investing over $1.7 billion in public transport—an increase of 21 percent on the 2009-12 actual spend. This includes spending on new infrastructure like new rolling stock improvements in ticketing and real-time systems in urban centres. The Government believes in public transport as an important element in solving congestion problems in major cities. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: How is the Government investing in local roads? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Another good-news story here: under the National Land Transport Programme 2012-15 the Government is investing over $4 billion which is an increase of 14 percent on the 2009-12 actual spend. No roading controlling authority is receiving less funding than its previous allocation. In July 2011 the Government formed the Road Maintenance Task Force to drive value for money and seek opportunities to reduce costs in roading authorities around the country. The interim findings will also help the New Zealand Transport Agency and local authorities to work together to achieve greater efficiencies in tough economic times. 
Jami 
-Lee Ross 
: How is the Government continuing to invest in State highways including the roads of national significance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is a particularly good story. The Government is committed to the State highway network including the roads of national significance programme. It is investing over $5 billion over the next 3 years—7 percent more than in the previous programme. These roads will improve access to our ports and markets and are linked to our five largest centres of economic activity. The Victoria Park Tunnel the first of the roads of national significance was completed in 2012 under the stewardship of the previous Minister of Transport ahead of schedule and within budget. The Waikato Expressway the Tauranga Eastern Link the western ring route the Wellington Northern Corridor the Puhoi to Wellsford road and the Christchurch motorways will all be progressed in the next short while. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is it not true that today’s announcements really show that local roads and State highway maintenance continue to be starved to pay for his gold-plated motorway projects that KiwiRail is being set up to fail and that now he is having to borrow and raise taxes to make up for his wasteful mismanagement? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No it shows that the member asking the question has a very dismal view of the portfolio. 
Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements on Financial Support and Living Standards 
6. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I don’t want to see any New Zealand child in poverty”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister stands by his full statement which is: “I don’t want to see any New Zealand child in poverty and one thing I’m absolutely committed to is making sure they get a decent education so they can choose their own life but I think the argument here has to be to move people out of welfare into work.” That was reinforced by the child poverty report released yesterday which says that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift a child out of poverty. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why has the Prime Minister scorned the idea of a new child payment which has been recommended by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty as a key way to eliminate child poverty in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The comments were made because a universal payment does not target those in most need. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the household incomes report that shows that universal superannuation has contained poverty for older New Zealanders to just 7 percent while child poverty is at a high of 21 percent which is one in five New Zealand children? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It makes many many assertions and the member can pick off bits and pieces of it if she likes but overall what it says is that the best way to deal with child poverty in New Zealand is to ensure that there are employment opportunities for people who are caregivers or parents. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei’s question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman a member of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that in New Zealand we have compulsory superannuation for all older people regardless of their income and so we should also have universal support for our youngest and most vulnerable children? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: She is correct in what she says about the superannuation system but what I would say is that when it comes to protecting vulnerable New Zealanders we have a welfare system that in fact does discriminate in favour of allocate larger amounts of money to those who are caregivers. But what we can be certain of is that if parents and caregivers have work you will lessen the prospect of child poverty. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does he acknowledge that two out of five children living in poverty are in the homes of families who are in work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and that is why we are placing a huge focus on growing the economy. Our opponents seem to think that people’s income situations can be advantaged by stifling an economy by saying no to everything that might grow an economy and that is not going to lift anybody let alone any child out of a difficult circumstance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the Children’s Commissioner is wrong to conclude that a universal child payment for children aged to 6 and then targeted until age 7 would in fact capture very few wealthy families but ensure that those kids who are most in need get the help that they do need? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not agree with that statement and I am surprised that the member can come into this House and regularly criticise the Government for apparently putting in place a tax system that advantages the highest earners and then make a case for the highest earners to receive a universal child benefit. That does not make sense and it will not lift a single child out of poverty. What will is supporting economic growth in this country and it is a shame the member and her party do not wake up and realise that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If as he says his Government’s focus has been on growing the economy for those in poverty why has the latest income report shown that those in poverty have stayed in poverty those in the middle have gone backwards and those on upper incomes have all improved their economic status? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Once again you go to the particular measure that might be used and on two pages of the report page 81 and page 82 there are conflicting informations about the difference between incomes in New Zealand. What it does show very clearly though is that between the years 2000 and 2005 the income disparity in New Zealand—inequity—was at its widest point. Even though we have had this spike up due to very very real circumstances in this country and internationally we are nowhere near those huge gap levels of the early 2000s to mid-2000s. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can he confirm that the figures he just quoted from were before Working for Families had had its impact in terms of reducing inequality in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is no evidence to suggest that Working for Families has been taken away because it has not. Therefore any suggestion—[ 
Interruption 
] Well it is quite simple. The gap between those income groups was in the years 2000 to 2005. I do not think it is fair to say that the figures in here do not show an effect when in fact our opponents will not accept that the figures in here do show the effect of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about the impact that Working for Families has had on inequality and on the figures that the Acting Prime Minister was quoting. I have not come away with a clear answer from the Acting Prime Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Hon Gerry Brownlee to answer further. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well in the graph on page 81 that shows the greatest disparity—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister—just one moment. Look the member asking the question raised a point of order that her question had not been answered. The Minister realised he did not answer that part of the question he is now answering it and I believe it is reasonable he should be heard. There is too much noise. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: On the two graphs that I am talking to on pages 81 and 82 the greatest disparity is shown in the years 2000 to 2005 under a Labour Government but on the other graph between those same years the trend line is flat. So that would not support the argument being put forward by the member. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell reporters yesterday that “the very targeted” Working for Families payments were a better option than a universal child payment when that very targeted in-work tax credit system deliberately excludes the poorest children in this country—those whose parents cannot work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are two things that need to be pointed out there. The first is “in work” and that is our focus. We want more people who are currently having to live on benefits to be in work. The second point was “can’t find work”. We want people to make themselves work-ready and we are prepared to assist them to get work-ready. So let us be very very clear: if people are working they need to be given an opportunity to get the benefit of their work. When it comes to people who are not working it seems strange—you just do not put benefits up to destroy the prospect of work in the first place. 
Metiria Turei 
: Since the Prime Minister has now rejected a universal child payment in favour of targeted assistance will he support the Green Party member’s bill that replaces the in-work tax credit with a child payment targeted at the poorest children in New Zealand those who need it the most; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The figures here speak for themselves. There are many people in work who need that assistance so we are not going to take it away. Therefore we will not support the Green Party bill. 
Welfare Reforms—Purpose 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 My question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Have the members at the back of the House quite finished? Because I want to be able to hear Tim Macindoe. 
7. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Why is the Government making changes to the welfare system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 We believe that work is the best path out of poverty—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. Look the noise is unreasonable today. The Minister had not even started to say a word and there was a barrage of noise from the Opposition benches and that is not reasonable. I ask members just to be a little more reasonable—that is all. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We believe that work is the best pathway out of poverty. That is why more than 88000 people cancelled their benefit last year to go into work. That does not count those—[ 
Interruption 
] It is in your own time. But that does not include those who have travelled overseas. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes it does. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No it is those who left welfare to go into work—more than 88000 people. It is well and truly in line with the recent Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty report which says: “Research indicates that a parent obtaining full-time paid employment is the most important event to lift children out of poverty.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go to Tim Macindoe I say in fairness to the Hon Trevor Mallard that the level of interjection is just unreasonable. The continual yelling across the House is not necessary during question time. Interjections can be made but that is just unreasonable. I call Tim Macindoe. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! How does that help? Tim Macindoe. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What do we know about—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Look the House has had a bit of fun today but it has got totally unreasonable and some members will have an early shower if we do not get this under better control. Let us just take a deep breath and get this under control. We are meant to be grown up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that seeing as the public are watching this someone should rush to say that on this side of the House we have a shower in the morning; we do not come here unclean. I cannot speak for the other side over there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think none of this is terribly helpful. We must get on with question time. It is not fair to the public if there is too much noise because they cannot hear clearly and that is simply not fair. I ask members to show a little more respect. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What do we know about the outcomes for families and children who are welfare dependent? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are people in work who struggle to make ends meet and there is no doubt about that but all research indicates that paid work is generally not just good for your bank account but also good for your mental and physical well-being and that is why this Government has a clear focus on the benefits of work for those who are welfare dependent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No.—[ 
Interruption 
] Supplementary question Tim Macindoe. 
Tim Macindoe 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker. There was a member opposite in the House and I was offering her a chance. How will an investment approach support the Government’s welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We currently put 90 percent of our employment assistance funding into the unemployment benefit yet the expert advisory group highlights that sole parenthood is a major factor of poverty. Surely then it makes sense to redirect support where it is needed most and the investment approach will do that. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she believe that there is a period when a child will be better off with their sole parent at home caring for them; if so up to what age? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen research that actually shows indications that in some instances it is for short periods of time and for other parents it is for different and longer periods of time. So I do not put an actual month or year date on it. I think that it is different for different families and that they should have that choice. 
Children Pasifika—Expert Advisory Group Report and Better Public Services Targets 
8. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister for Pacific Island Affairs 
: Does she agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that “For New Zealand to do well Pasifika children must do well”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister for Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 I do agree with that statement. That is why the National Government has committed to delivering 10 challenging Better Public Services results within the next 3 to 5 years. Many of these targets prioritise Pasifika children and the aiga. For example 98 percent of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016 85 percent of all 18-year-olds will have achieved National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 or equivalent or better in 2017 and the incidence of rheumatic fever will be reduced by two-thirds to 1.4 cases per 100000 by June 2017. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: Given that on some measures 40 percent of Pasifika children live in poverty which of the measures put forward by the expert advisory group will she support in order to halve child poverty among the Pacific community? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: A quality education that secures a quality qualification will put all young Pasifika learners on a better pathway. In fact the draft report says at page 22: “The most important factors in improving Pasifika schooling outcomes is quality teaching practice and professional leadership that connects with Pasifika students their families and the wider community. There are initiatives in hand that aim to address Pasifika underachievement: the implementation of national standards in primary schooling the development of Trades Academies a greater range of pathways in secondary education and the Pasifika Education Plan. We endorse”—says the expert advisory group—“all the Better Public Services Targets for education.” 
Su’a William Sio 
: Does she agree with the expert advisory group that Pasifika children are currently not well served by the New Zealand education system; if so will she be raising her concerns about current education policies like increasing early childhood education fees with the Minister of Education? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am concerned that the New Zealand education system has not served Pasifika learners as well as it can and will and that is why we are investing in not only early childhood education; in Vote Education 2012-13 $47.9 million of equity funding was directed explicitly at the issue of how we raise the level of Pasifika engagement participation and retention in early childhood education. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Does she consider it her responsibility to help create job opportunities for Pasifika youth; if so what opportunities has she created given that the unemployment rate for Pasifika girls aged 20 years is a staggering 50.3 percent higher than the youth unemployment rate in Italy and just below Greece’s rate? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I do indeed believe that both in this portfolio as Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and as the Minister of Education I do have a responsibility to contribute to young Pasifika being able to attain employment. The fastest and most sustainable way of doing that is to raise the quality of educational achievement. Both my portfolios are directed at that outcome. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Is she aware that Pasifika households have seen the biggest declines in income since the 1990s according to the household income report from the Ministry of Social Development; if so what action if any has her ministry taken over the last 4 years to prevent Pasifika households being disproportionately affected by the recession? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs has been engaged in a number of projects that have been directed to this end. The Pacific Employment Support Services has seen 61 percent of its 434 participants into sustainable employment. The ministry has been involved in the youth skills and development initiatives working with the churches across New Zealand to secure trade training places—300 of those. It has been involved with the Ministry of Education in revising the  
Pasifika Education Plan  
so that we can see 1100 more Pasifika people achieving an NCEA level 2 or equivalent qualification over the next 5 years because the most sustainable way of achieving employment for Pasifika learners is for them to have an excellent education. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: I seek leave to table unpublished Statistics New Zealand data obtained from the Parliamentary Library for the June 2012 quarter highlighting significant unemployment for Pasifika youth. 
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. 
Health Targets—Immunisation of 2-year-olds and Change of Target Age 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress can he report on immunising young children against common infectious diseases like whooping cough and measles? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The latest quarterly national health targets will be published tomorrow. In 2007 only 67 percent of 2-year-olds were immunised on time against the most common childhood diseases. Tomorrow the figures will show that the country has achieved 93 percent immunisation coverage for 2-year-olds. What is most significant is that the families that achieved the highest immunisation rate were the most well-off families in New Zealand and also the poorest families in New Zealand—both on 94 percent. Pacific Island and Asian children have the highest immunisation rates of all—97 percent and 98 percent. With Maori children at 92 percent fully immunised there is virtually no gap to the overall rate of 93 percent. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What further progress does he intend making with immunisation rates? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are now changing the national immunisation target to focus not on 2-year-olds but on 8-month-olds so that they get their primary immunisations at 6 weeks 3 months and 5 months. Younger children are the most vulnerable to these infectious diseases—61 percent of all hospitalisations for whooping cough are in fact infants. The new target will ensure that our children are vaccinated earlier and on time. The Government is also making it easier for parents to get their babies immunised at the right time. We have introduced at-birth enrolment which means that maternity unit staff will be able to notify general practices of a child’s birth before the mother and baby leave the maternity unit. 
Child Poverty—Expert Advisory Group Report Recommendations on Housing 
10. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Which of the recommendations on housing from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty will he implement? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I note that the paper contains many proposals that are worthy of serious consideration and that complement many existing initiatives. However the paper is currently a draft. It has been released for public comment and is not expected to be submitted to the Government until later this year in its final form. I look forward to working with my colleagues in due course on the Government’s response. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that there is a lack of supply of housing especially in Auckland leading to overcrowding temporary housing shortages and homelessness and it is linked to affordability? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes I agree with many aspects of the report. Many of them are not news to me or this Government. They may be news to the Labour Party. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was that necessary? It was a straight question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s point is fair enough that the member did in fact ask a very specific question. The Minister said he agreed with many aspects of the report. He did not actually answer as to whether he agreed with that aspect. And as he gave an unnecessary comment at the end he will now get to his feet and answer the question. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I agree with many aspects of the report and many of the examples in the report. The conclusions that the member read out I agree with. She raised several about overcrowding expensive housing in Auckland and so forth. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that there is a limited stock of community housing and there are policy impediments to its expansion? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes and that is why we are working hard with community housing organisations to increase the stock in Auckland and elsewhere across the country. I believe that in the last 3½ years we have jointly funded—that is a collaborative approach where we have put up $1 and they have put up $2—about 700 new builds across New Zealand many of them in Auckland. We are very proud of our relationship with the community housing sector. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty that the Government needs to take immediate action to increase the number of social and affordable houses; if so why after 4 years as Minister can he not identify which State houses are in the wrong place are the wrong size and are in poor condition? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We do agree that we need an increase in social housing across New Zealand. We have said—at least I have said in the last year or two—that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will contribute to new housing. In fact we have supplied 2000 new builds or leased new builds over the last 4 years. However it is the community housing sector that we see as the area for growth. We are saying that State housing and the Government cannot do it alone. That is why I am very proud of our record of working with the community housing sector to increase the housing supply throughout New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is he unable to identify which State houses are in the wrong place are the wrong size and are in poor condition—something that he has been saying for 4 years but is unable to provide in terms of an answer to this House? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well I will give the House two examples of where houses are in poor condition or they are the wrong size or whatever it is. One is in Farmer Crescent where we decided to remove those ugly State houses and all the problems that came with them and the Labour Party opposed us doing that. The other place is in Tamaki where we have got 3000 State houses on quarter-acre or half-acre sections. Interestingly the Mana Party the Green Party and the Labour Party are opposing us fixing up those houses as well. So everywhere we identify old cold and mouldy State houses on large sections that are the wrong size the Labour Party opposes us doing something about it. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance. I asked this question because I have asked it in a written form and the Minister said he is unable to provide me with the information as to where State houses are in the wrong place of the wrong size and in poor condition. But today he has started to provide some answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member is now debating the Minister’s answer. I mean I cannot be party to all that information. The Minister did answer the question asked. The member asked why he could not identify certain things and the Minister explained what happened when the Government did identify certain things and why it was difficult. It was an answer to the question. 
State Housing—Number of Houses Insulated 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How many State houses have been made warmer and drier under this Government? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Over the last 3½ years the Government has taken improving the condition of the State housing stock and the living conditions of our tenants very seriously. Over 19000 State houses have been identified and found and then they have been insulated in that time. Over 9000 houses received a new form of heating. Altogether we have invested over $75 million in energy-efficiency retrofits and heating upgrades. We have got just under 8000 houses to go. We hope to have those insulated by the end of next year. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other improvements have been made to the State housing stock under this Government? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Government has invested over $300 million in upgrading State housing stock so that thousands more of our tenants are living in houses that are fit for purpose. In addition we have also spent over $600 million on acquiring over 2000 new State houses—new builds or new-build leases—in the right place of the right size and of good quality. We are partnering with the community housing sector and have co-funded projects that will result in 700 new houses. We have spent on average over $200 million a year on maintenance compared with $133 million a year under the previous Labour Government. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other initiatives has the Government taken to support the provision of housing for those most in need? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Recently over $37 million allocated in the 2011-12 Budget for social housing projects by community housing organisations was handed over. This will result in 250 new houses for affordable rental and homeownership across the country. A further $104 million is appropriated over the next 3 years. The Government is also looking at opportunities to use Crown land or State housing stock to grow the community housing sector. 
Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference 2012—Cost to Government 
12. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What is the cost of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment acting as a founding partner of the 2012 Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference; and what is the total cost of all Government sponsorship of this conference? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 I am advised that the cost to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is $100000. I am further advised that a number of Crown research institutes are also sponsors of the conference but given that Crown research institutes are only partly Government funded it is not possible to quantify the Government funding used by Crown research institutes to sponsor the conference as well. The goal of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s funding of the conference is to promote New Zealand’s expertise in agriculture innovation science and technology which helps our credibility and reputation in the global market place. One of the ministry’s key roles is to facilitate connections between scientists and users and an international conference of this scope is an excellent way to showcase New Zealand’s research and development capabilities and advances to a global audience. 
Steffan Browning 
: Is the fact that the Government is sponsoring this conference financially an endorsement that genetically modifying crops is the right direction for the New Zealand economy despite the risk of this approach to our clean green advantage? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. The Government’s role in sponsoring this conference and what it is seeking to achieve is to bring a world-quality agricultural biotechnology conference to New Zealand to discuss a whole range of agricultural technology issues. 
Steffan Browning 
: What economic return if any has the Government seen from its investment of tens of millions of dollars in genetically engineered pasture plants? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not have that particular matter to hand but what I can tell the member is that in a broader sense New Zealand’s investment in agricultural technology has been absolutely fundamental to our economic success over decades and decades. 
Steffan Browning 
: I seek leave to table a report by the Sustainability Council that shows that tens of millions of dollars of Government money have been spent on GE pasture plants with no return. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Steffan Browning 
: Is he concerned that the New Zealand Crown research institutes sponsoring this conference have all seriously breached their GE field trial approval conditions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I am not aware that that is the case but I am concerned that the Crown research institutes periodically get attacked at their GE facilities. For example recently I think $100000 worth of crops were damaged at a Scion facility by Wild Greens activists. I think that is a difficulty because that actually does create risks. 
Steffan Browning 
: I seek leave to table the 2009 Plant and Food Research report prepared for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand that shows that Plant and Food Research breached its own GE field trial conditions. 
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. 
Steffan Browning 
: I seek leave to table the University of Canterbury’s 2011 report that shows that AgResearch breached its GE field trial monitoring requirements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is publicly available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well members can object. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Steffan Browning 
: I seek leave to table the 2008 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand report that shows that Scion has breached its GE field trial conditions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. We have been sitting here today—actually over the last 2 days—listening to the Government desperately trying to defend its record on poverty in New Zealand. It is trying to defend its record against three reports—three reports not just one. Those are  
The Netherlands Study 
 the Ministry of Social Development’s report  
Household incomes in New Zealand 
 and the Children’s Commissioner’s report all of which are saying exactly the same thing: that poverty has gone up in New Zealand. More than 250000 children are now living in poverty. We now have the highest level of poverty that we have seen in the last 20 years. Not since the 1990s—the early 1990s—have we seen such record levels of poverty. And hardship material hardship for young people and children has gone up from 16 percent to 21 percent of children in this country.  
That is a disgrace. It is a bloody disgrace that our country is in that situation where children are in such conditions. We are seeing in the hospitals rheumatic fever skin diseases and respiratory diseases—all of these sorts of diseases that you would see not in a place like New Zealand but in a place like the Third World. These are places that I have seen and worked in before and here we are seeing them in this country. It is a disgrace.  
What we hear from the other side of the House is that all we need to do is make sure that everybody is in full employment. Well I agree that full employment is a wonderful thing and under the Labour Government that is exactly what we had—3.5 percent unemployment. But I can tell you that the biggest problem here is that 40 percent of those kids who are in poverty—40 percent—are actually from families where there is employment. There is employment in those families. What does that tell you? It tells you very simply that we are not paying enough.  
This Government John Key’s Government is actually aiming for the bottom. It is aiming for a low-wage economy rather than a high-wage economy. What that means is that one in five people who go to the Salvation Army to get food parcels come from families who are in poverty and are working. When this Government says that all we need to do is to put people into work it overlooks the fact that the rates of pay are so low for many of these families that they will not be able to avoid going into poverty. They will not be able to avoid bringing up their children without the benefits that they need in order to thrive.  
The other big question about going for full employment is the absolutely obvious one. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that are meant to be supplied to those people who need to move into employment? They are not there. John Key gave a number of statements a number of promises over the last few months. He said: “I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty.” We have failed. He said: “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty.” So is Labour but what has happened? Nothing. He also said: “We will bring a special focus to improving the results of public services for vulnerable children.” The only problem is that we are going backwards not forwards. A string of empty phrases and empty promises does not actually help.  
The Ministerial Committee on Poverty is a joke. It has met four times. It cannot even come up with a measurement on poverty. There is a really good reason for that because if you come up with a measurement you actually have to be measured against it. If this Government is measured against a poverty measure it will be found to be wanting. It will be found to have failed. So we have this Ministerial Committee on Poverty that keeps on just meeting month after month after month and nothing is coming out of it. We actually offered— 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this general debate. I listened to the last 5 minutes of the member who has resumed his seat Mr David Shearer the current leader—apparently—of the Labour Party and I looked for heard and waited for one solution. There was not one. There I think is the essence of what is going on in this Parliament. We have in Government a Government that makes decisions. We have in the Opposition one that does nothing but whinge. Every single thing that this Government proposes for economic growth the Opposition is against. We can be guaranteed of one thing: whatever it is the Opposition is against it. The Leader of the Opposition has said that it is against poverty. Fine so where are his solutions? Is he for growth? No. Is he for mining? Well possibly this week but maybe not next. Is he for cutting down regulation? Well no probably not because something else might happen. He just wants wages to grow and yet he does not think about the consequences. He does not think about people actually losing their jobs. He does not think about where we trade because he is against trade these days. We have now got a Labour Party that is nothing except opposition; it is pro-nothing except itself. 
We have had in fact over the last 2 years 60000 new jobs created in this economy despite the fact that we have been in one of the toughest financial situations of the world since the 1930s. That is what we have seen. We now have three-quarters of all income earners paying a tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent. 
 They are incentivised to work. They are incentivised to take on overtime. They are incentivised to get ahead. One of the biggest efforts from this Government—one of the biggest results of the work that we have done in Government—is what we have seen in terms of interest rates. For most New Zealanders who want to own their own home or do own their own home a rise in interest rates is one of the toughest things that they will face. What we have now seen are interest rates for our home owners and our borrowers in business down to the lowest rates in 45 years. This means that for someone who has a $200000 loan they are saving $200 per week every week and it has been going like that pretty much since this Government has been in office. That is all to do with the fact that this Government is keeping its costs down making sure that all of the money we spend we spend wisely. 
By goodness when I think about wise spending none of it has been so wise might I say to my colleagues as in the justice sector. Some fantastic spending has gone on there and some great results. This Government has not just done what Labour did—just build new prisons which it did in the 2000s under Phil Goff and his leadership in this area. Four new prisons were built. Well we did not have to do that. My colleague Anne Tolley is getting to close prisons these days. When Labour came into office we had 5000 prisoners; when it left it left us with 8500 prisoners. We have now got the biggest sustainable drop in the prison population since the 1930s all under a National Government. In all of that what we have done is we have in fact— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: So lucky with what she inherited from a Labour Government. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He says that I am so lucky. I inherited corrections from that member and I would like to tell him that it was a mess when I took it over and it is a great portfolio now. 
Let us look at some of the other things we are doing. We are cracking down—[ 
Interruption 
] See? They are against that too—against that. What we have got is the lowest crime rate in 30 years down to 1982 levels. We are dealing with cyber-bullying we are dealing with child pornography we are dealing with public protection orders we are reducing unnecessary parole hearings we are preventing released offenders living next door to their victims under the changes to the Harassment Act and we have changed the Crimes Act to make it an offence for someone to stay silent when they know children are being abused in the house where they are living just like the Kahui situation. We are dealing with that and we have cleaned up the finances around that. We have done some excellent work and we have got more to come. That is just some of the work that we are working on. 
But actually in addition to all of that we have given renewed confidence to the Public Service to be able to get on to do the best job it can. With the police we have a police force with public confidence at record highs as far as I recall at 84 percent—84 percent. They are even more trusted than family general practitioners. These are unbelievable rates compared with anywhere else in the world. I look around at other Governments in similar countries in some of the jurisdictions in Australia and the UK and elsewhere. We are seeing police numbers drop in this country. Crime is not going up; it is going down. We have done an excellent job and there is even better to come. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This week there has been a lot of focus particularly from the Opposition on the issue of child poverty. It is very welcome. I understand from my communications with the community that people are very concerned about child poverty and very concerned about inequality and they want this House and the parliamentary process to address this. They want the Government to provide solutions and to make the choices that will put our children first in all the decisions that are made. What I have heard most is this great disappointment at the dismissive and arrogant attitude of the Government in relation to this issue. The community wants to see much better quality leadership than the National Government is providing to the country on this important issue. It shows that the National Government does not put children as a priority and that it is not prepared to engage in a rational and sensible debate on what can be done to resolve child poverty in this country. Child poverty is not a given in New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member speaking. I hate to interrupt a 5-minute speech but members interjecting across the House and in front of the member speaking it is so discourteous. I ask members to desist please. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Child poverty is not a given in this country. It is not a natural condition and we do not need to tolerate any aspect of child poverty in this country. We can choose something different. We can choose to eliminate it by choosing where we put the resources of this country. 
There have been a number of reports that have come out over the last few weeks. The Every Child Counts report on  
The Netherlands Study 
 showed a very interesting comparison. In the Netherlands if you take an investment approach to children when they are very young you reap the rewards. New Zealand has a very low investment in New Zealand children something like half of the OECD average that is spent for those under-sixes. But in other countries where there has been significant investment in those little children and babies there have been significant cost savings and social savings as a result. We know that the cost to New Zealand of child poverty is in the range of $6 billion to $8 billion a year. That is a cost this country cannot afford. 
So why do we not then take some leadership and invest in the babies and the kids when they are very young? That is part of the sets of solutions that have been put forward by the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty formed by the Children’s Commissioner. The Children’s Commissioner’s advisory group has produced a very comprehensive set of solutions that it is consulting with the communities on so that people can have an input into it as they want to do. But we need the Government to be taking it seriously and all we have heard since that report came out is constant derision at the solutions that are being proposed and no engagement in the practical aspects of them. 
One of the interesting questions is around universalism and I have asked a number of questions today and yesterday about this issue and will continue to do so. If we are prepared to say that older people are entitled to a life of dignity and a basic income to keep them out of poverty why do we not say that about our youngest babies? Why are our babies allowed to languish in severe poverty? Twenty percent of New Zealand’s children are living in severe poverty in this country and this Government chooses to allow that to happen. It chooses that because it refuses to engage with a discussion on how we can support those babies when they need it the most and support those families when they need it the most. 
The expert advisory group has suggested a universal provision until the children are aged 6—so investment in those little babies when they need it the most—and then targeted provision until those kids are 17. It is a rational sensible and modest approach to child investment. Yet this Government will not even engage in the discussion about where we choose to put our resources. New Zealanders make a contribution to this country every day through their taxes through their hours of community service and through all of the work that they do and they deserve to have a rational response back to them. They deserve to have services that assist them when they need them. The solutions that are provided in this report  
Solutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand 
 go a very long way to identifying those solutions and what can be done. 
What has the Government done? It has effectively thrown it away. It has been dismissive and arrogant in its response. There is still the opportunity for the Government to choose differently. There is still the time for the Government to take a considered view of this report to look at the solutions and to engage with political parties and politicians across the board with the community and with the experts to look at what is possible. We ask the Government to take this report seriously— 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. In regards to the previous speaker Metiria Turei look everybody in this House I think will want to see children do well and children be successful. In fact I think probably most of us are here to see the future of our children be enhanced and improved for the benefit of the whole country. The problem is the diagnosis of how to do that. The Greens unfortunately constantly talk about doing it but then actually oppose ways in which we can get families to earn more income. They oppose job opportunities for families and oppose opportunities for growing businesses. In fact right this afternoon there is an example. We had one of the members of the Greens getting up and criticising a worldwide agritechnology and biotechnology conference being held in New Zealand and saying it should not be here because of some of the subjects that are being discussed—discussed mind you not implemented—and saying that that is something that should not happen in this country. 
The Greens have no shortage of things that should not happen in this country and most of the things they want to stop are the things that would give families incomes and things that would help the economy grow and provide job opportunities and higher wages for New Zealanders. This Government is determined to put our children first by focusing on those opportunities for New Zealanders. We have got a comprehensive plan. One example just this afternoon is our investment in infrastructure. Mr Brownlee is going out and laying out the plan which Labour and the Greens have opposed. They want to stop the plan. They want to invest more in transport that nobody uses instead of the transport that people use thereby reducing the competitiveness of the New Zealand economy. 
We are also very focused on a natural resources agenda which is also something opposed by most of the parties on the other side of the House. One thing we can all agree on I think is that we are focused on building innovation. We are spending massive amounts investing in that and that is probably one thing they would agree on. Then when it comes to capital markets if you are going to build exports—one for Mr Peters opposite—that needs investment. That investment has to come from overseas and that means not being paranoid about Chinese investment in this country. That means not being paranoid about Chinese investment. This Government is not being paranoid about that. So when you take infrastructure our skills agenda natural resources innovation export markets capital markets the competitive tax system which Minister Collins referred to and our approach to balancing the books and giving confidence to businesses and keeping interest rates low this Government has a comprehensive agenda which New Zealanders know and endorse. 
The alternative is one of the flimsiest bits of paper that I have seen in many a day—David Parker’s midnight scribblings Labour members’ so-called alternative. One hundred words in total. One page 100 words in total about what they would do if they were in Government. It is no wonder Labour is languishing at 30-odd percent in the polls. This is the most appalling piece of flimsy lightweight information I think I have seen. 
Here are a few examples of some of the initiatives that the Opposition is promoting. Changing gear—they would like to change gear. No idea what that means. There is no elaboration on what that means. There is a website apparently that you can go to if you want to change gear. So there you go that is the Labour Party’s approach—changing gear. Grow the heartland—well we are all in favour of growing the heartland. How are they going to do it? High-value manufacturing—well yes we are all in favour. Hang on what else is here? Warm puppies—they are positive about warm puppies. Motherhood—that is another. Apple pie is supported by the Labour Party. In fact all of these things are simple platitudes. The party that accuses us of being lightweight is the most lightweight party on the planet. 
Here is my favourite: saying that New Zealand should save more. Well I have visions of David Parker being elected one day in the 22nd century wearing a sandwich board wandering around the country exhorting New Zealanders “Save more. Save more.” Well aside from the fact that actually they are saving more—and if they save more that would probably slow down the productive economy a little bit at this point because they are already saving a lot—and aside from the stupid economics it is the most appalling lack of any sort of initiatives. And they think that that is some sort of plan. That is not a plan; that is a series of sound bites that say absolutely nothing. They have the gall to get up and criticise the Government’s agenda and then wander around with a flimsy piece of paper with 100 words on it that achieves absolutely nothing. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 In the light of three hard-hitting reports in as many weeks the best we can get from the Government is mockery. At least Minister Joyce has moved away from his laminated cards for one small moment to spend a little time talking about a party that actually has an economic plan. We have seen an absolute failure from that side of the House to adequately respond to the needs of New Zealand families which have been highlighted in reports as diverse as the Ministry of Social Development’s own report on household incomes in New Zealand. The report has shown that material deprivation under that Government has moved from 15 to 21 percent. That is the inability of families to do basic things like going to the doctor like filling prescriptions and like keeping their homes warm. 
But if the Government chooses to use another measure—and this is a controversial point for that side of the House because measurement is not something they would like us to focus on—such as income on a basic measure as to whether or not New Zealanders have enough income to survive 25 percent of our children are now living in poverty. That is an absolute disgrace. Not only is it a disgrace but it is costing us dearly. So as much as that Government claims that we do not have the money to address this issue we actually cannot afford not to. Infometrics tells us that we are spending— 
Mike Sabin 
: A family on $50000 income parents with two children: tax neutral. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
:—Mr Sabin $6 billion per annum on children getting a poor start in life. If that Government wants to save money for taxpayers the best thing it could do is address under-investment in our most vulnerable children. And we are under-investing. We spend roughly half of what other OECD nations do on our smallest most vulnerable children and we pay the price of that and we pay it poorly. Not only do other OECD nations pay just a little bit more than us they get much better outcomes. 
So what is my challenge to that Government? Do not ignore the facts. That Government stands up and says that simply by moving people into work problem solved. Well let us look at how it has done that: welfare reforms that actually will not even on the best estimate get welfare numbers down to the level that Labour when in Government left them in. Labour left welfare in a better state than that Government is even aspiring to: 17000 people on an unemployment benefit versus 50000 now. Its own targets are not even aspirational enough to get it back there. First welfare reforms alone are not going to solve it. Second is being in work is enough? Not according to the statistics because two out of five children in poverty are already in the homes of the working poor. That means that that Government’s focus on getting people into work is not even enough for people to survive these days even with two members of the family in work. Wages are disgracefully low in this country and that Government claims that job creation and its economic growth strategy is helping working New Zealand families. 
Mike Sabin 
: How many initiatives has that member opposed to grow the economy? Oh that’s right all of them. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Do you know how it helped Mr Sabin? In the past 3 years poverty went static the middle went backwards and those on high incomes went up. That was not the global financial crisis Mr Sabin. That was an economic policy that was focused on two things: trickle-down and tax cuts for those who did not need them. That was your economic plan and our children are paying for that Mr Sabin. 
What else has the Government proposed? It has proposed immunisation insulation and at best maybe it might consider lunches in schools. These are short-term solutions to long-term problems. That Government does not want to acknowledge that rheumatic fever will not be fixed by swabbing. 
Mike Sabin 
: Lots of talk no walk. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: It will be fixed by decent warm houses and you are doing nothing on that Mr Sabin. That immunisation is actually just moving the ambulance around at the bottom of the cliff. We have got to get to the root cause of the issue and that is something that this Government does not want to do. 
This Labour Party in the last election put forward a comprehensive policy on children. We proposed many of the things that the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty has proposed and we are not afraid to continue promoting them on behalf of those most vulnerable in New Zealand. We will start with a target to reduce child poverty. We are ambitious. We have unfinished business and we will see it completed under a Labour Government. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a call in this general debate. It is interesting to note that when the last speaker Jacinda Ardern came into Parliament she came at the end of her party’s term in Government and faced her first term being in Opposition. She has conveniently been able to pull the door behind her and forget what Labour did not do when it was in Government for 9 years. A lot of the policies that Labour members are now espousing to promote and enhance they never took anywhere near those people they now want to extend them to. 
If we want to talk about Working for Families we heard the Green Party talk about this earlier on. It is interesting to note that the Labour Party has recently been talking a lot about the Green Party and the sanctimonious way that its members are addressing the issues of today given that they were there supporting Labour in Government but they never encouraged Labour down that track—for instance to extend Working for Families to the unemployed. That is something that Labour is now wanting to do. Now that Labour is in Opposition it is promoting something that it never went anywhere near when it was in Government and had the opportunity to do it. 
When Labour left office in November 2008 we know that inflation was sitting at 5.1 percent. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How much? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: It was 5.1 percent and now it is at about 1 percent. But apparently that does not mean anything because the only thing apparently that people on this side of the House are interested in is business and tax cuts for our rich mates. I would put it to members opposite that the only thing they are interested in is keeping poor people poor because as long as they are poor they are poor and dejected they are interested only in voting against things that take a community anywhere and they are interested only in voting for Labour because Labour will never hold them to account for the decisions they make in their day-to-day lives. Labour was in Government for 9 years but never—never—made a measure for measuring poverty. Now it wants to put in place a measure—the mean income. 
Well as incomes go up what do you know? With a measure like that you will have more people supposedly by Labour’s measure living in poverty. I reject totally the idea of relative poverty. There are not many of us with wrinkles round our eyeballs like Maryan Street Annette King me and Rajen Prasad who did not grow up in a lot less comfort than people live in today. If we went by Labour’s measure we would have been where? We would have been in poverty. We would have been in poverty if it happened that our most frequently worn clothes that we were wearing used to belong to our cousin or the neighbour next door or if the groceries that we bought from the supermarket were a hell of a lot fewer with a lot less of a range because we did not have the money to spend. The veges that you got you went and got from the garden. 
Apparently those poor people live in poverty. If they happen to live in a house that has all the opportunities to do the things that our parents did like grow vegetables then apparently they do not have the will to do that. Why? Because they live in poverty. Everybody on this planet knows that it is not what happens to you in life; it is how you respond to it. And the cards are not always dealt fairly and people across the House on all sides of the House know that because we are not stupid enough to put people into pigeonholes— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: I think you are. I think the member is. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: —like Mr Rajen Prasad would to suggest that anyone who comes from this side of the House does not know what hardship is. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Oh come on. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: But I repeat that it is the way you respond to things. If Mr Prasad looks back at his history and at the way that his family responded to the circumstances they found themselves in he will see the answer to the question why he does not live in poverty today. For instance those people relying on the pension—people like my parents and possibly people like the parents of members opposite—who survive on the pension as their sole income all live in poverty. You go and ask those old-age pensioners today if they are living in poverty and they will tell you that life is not easy they will tell you that life has never been easy and they will tell you that the whole of this game that we call life in Godzone is about the top 2 inches and it is about how you respond to those things that are put in front of you. It is not about a bleeding heart and claiming that the Government needs to pay for everything. What we know for instance is that in the time that this Government has been in power in the few short years that we have been here— 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 The Prime Minister has admitted that he could not live on the minimum wage. How does he expect anybody else to? How does he expect anybody else to live on the minimum wage? Forty percent of children in poverty are in homes where the parents or parent are employed are in work. We are talking about the working poor as a developing group in our society something that none of us ever thought we would see happen. Chester Borrows has just said that my generation did not live in anything like the poverty we are talking about today but my parents believed that education was the way out of poverty—education was the way out of poverty. But I want to draw a couple of other things to Chester Borrows’ attention. I want to tell him that the highest income earners in this country have seen an increase in their incomes while at the same time middle-income earners have seen a drop in the value of their incomes and the least well-paid have seen an even further drop. 
 Poverty is real. We have a report that reinforces some of the causes but also some of the effects of poverty that we know about. I want to make the link between health outcomes and poverty because it is not sufficient now simply to say like my parents did: “Go and get a good education and you can drag yourselves up by the bootstraps.” Let us take one example in this report. Let us have a look at some of the connections between health and poverty. It says very clearly that children growing up in low-income households face multiple risks so nobody starts from the same starting point. They say that these children have a 1.4 times higher risk of dying during childhood than a child from a high-income household. They are more likely to die of sudden unexplained death in infancy. They are three times more likely to be sick. Hospitalisation rates for these children are higher than for those from wealthier areas. They are at greater risk of contracting infectious diseases as these spread more easily obviously in houses that are overcrowded and inadequate. So these children start off way behind the starting blocks. 
It is not sufficient for the Government to say that we need to grow the economy by making businesses more productive. If that were the answer I wish it had done something about it already. But that is not happening either. But even if it were it would not be sufficient. There is an undercurrent of poverty in our society now that we have not seen for decades. We have certainly not seen it in my lifetime. 
One of the things that I find really disturbing about this report is that we are famous for being a food-producing nation. It says that poor nutrition is a significant problem in New Zealand. Why is poor nutrition a significant problem in New Zealand? We know that poor nutrition in pregnancy can lead to premature births low birth weights and childhood learning and developmental difficulties. We know that. So they say we should have a child nutrition strategy. We did not have a complete child nutrition strategy when we were in Government but we went a long way towards it. We introduced Fruit in Schools axed by this Government. We introduced Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes come on. Let us have the correction. Let us find out why it is that private companies are sponsoring Fruit in Schools. Private companies are sponsoring breakfasts in schools. They get really get advertising out of it for sure. We instituted Fruit in Schools. We instituted Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes which this Government has axed. We introduced tuck shop guidelines in school tuck shops which made sure that school tuck shops offered only healthy options. What did this Government do? Cancel those. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 One of the things that seems to be a challenge for Opposition members in this House is their inability to connect the dots. The dots go like this: economic growth leads to increased exports which leads to increased jobs which means higher wages for families and for children which means more children out of poverty. I am somewhat challenged that Opposition members do not seem to get the basics which is connecting those fundamental dots. 
We have heard quite a lot in this debate in the House about the challenges with children. As a mother and as a constituent MP it is always very challenging to deal with cases of families who are not doing well. But particularly with the Green members I find it incredibly frustrating when time after time after time on any of the opportunities that lead to jobs that lead to higher wages that lead to increased exports for this country they say no. Well I challenge the Greens in this House: if you are serious about lifting children out of poverty just say yes. Just say yes. Even once would be a hallelujah moment in this House. Just say yes— 
Hon Member 
: Or even maybe. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: —or even maybe. There are a number of things that we have done in terms of protecting children and in terms of supporting families in need. We are realistic about the times that we are in. It would be lovely if we did not have tough economic times. It would be great if we did not. But this side of the House is just getting on dealing with the realities dealing with the challenges and dealing with the circumstances that we are facing. It is not an option as the Government to ignore those conditions. 
But one thing that is very very simple—and yes it was stated clearly in the report that those Opposition members like to refer to in this debate—is the strong focus on the benefits of work. Let me say that again. The poverty report states the benefits of work. We on this side of the House do not think that work is a dirty word. We actually see that work provides opportunities. Minister Paula Bennett has done just extraordinary work. She has tackled this whole area with complete gusto with guts and with courage and she has got on and done the job. 
There were announcements this week around the requirement for drug testing so that beneficiaries are work-ready. Do you know what? I have had so many constituents say to me that they thought that was already the case. They were absolutely stunned. I had a constituent in my office who said that she has to have a drug test to be in paid work. She has a younger brother whom she is so desperately trying to support. She is so desperately trying to support him to get into a job. He has been on and off the dole and she is trying to support him to get a job but one of the challenges is that he is smoking too much dope. She is desperately trying to support him and she said: “Absolutely—yippee!” when the Minister announced that finally we will be doing drug testing to enable people to be ready for work which is exactly what the welfare system is there for. It is to support people while they are out of work and support them we must. 
But the flip side of that is we cannot support people with a generous welfare system if our economy is not growing. I am going to go back to joining those dots. We cannot have a fantastic welfare system that supports the vulnerable that supports those in need unless we have an economy that is growing and exports that are growing. 
Just in the last couple of weeks in the Taupo electorate one of the things that I have been really proud of is having the trade Minister Tim Groser in the electorate. What his connections provide what he provides as our Minister of Trade is the opportunity for our exports to grow. We have got targets—to make exports 30 to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. But what that actually requires is a solid plan. Underneath these targets there is a significant amount of work that has gone into then breaking those down to ask how we get from where we are now in 2012 to achieving those targets in 2025. Being able to be involved in discussions with industry and businesses about growing is what it is all about. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I would like to start by paying tribute to the 40 or 50 young New Zealanders who are working away in this building not far from here in the EmpowerNZ conference organised by the McGuinness Institute. They have set themselves the task of drafting a new constitution for New Zealand. I have had the honour of being the MP hosting them in this building. I am bound to say that I am not entirely convinced that we need a new constitution—in fact I am not convinced at all. I am proud of the constitutional arrangements that we have in New Zealand at the moment. I think they have served us well. We have inherited them from centuries of tradition in the UK and we have got a good balance of liberty and simplicity around our arrangements without too many checks and balances. But I am very glad that these young kids are all there. 
It is amazing the enthusiasm that they are showing in getting into the job. They are a brilliant bunch—mainly law students too many law students perhaps but law students nevertheless—wrestling with those difficult issues that we have and the conflicting rights and trying to ask “Well if we were to construct a constitution from the start where would we begin?”. It is interesting that when they are dealing with questions of rights and how you balance economic rights of course there is no right to create money necessarily and the right to live a life where you can enjoy all the things that life has to give does not give you the right to live off the work of somebody else. So there is all these balances that these young people are trying to work out at the moment. They have been at it for a day and a half and tonight we are going to have a dinner where they are going to present the results of their efforts. So anyway good luck to them congratulations to the McGuinness Institute for putting that on and best wishes to those young people. 
When we turn to this question that is relevant today though about poverty I just want to quote from  
Hansard 
 a speech from Metiria Turei in the adjournment debate just before Christmas when she talked about the: “… National Government’s attacks on beneficiaries and to hear the Prime Minister in his address today restate the myth that work is a path out of poverty.” The myth—the myth—she said: “that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not.” I am quoting here from  
Hansard 
 Metiria Turei. It is true what I am saying here. She said that she did not like hearing the Prime Minister talk about “the myth that work is a path out of poverty. The truth is that it is not. For the two in every five children who live in poverty whose parents work work is not the pathway out of poverty. Work is the trap because work is not properly paid.” Heaven preserve this country if the Greens do get the opportunity to have control of the purse strings and if Russel Norman is finance Minister and Metiria Turei is social welfare Minister because that is the sort of attitude that drives them that work is not the path out of poverty; it is a trap. I am mindful though—on Saturday I went along to a community lunch organised by the good people of the Remuera community lunch club and one or two of them were pointing to an article from Anne Salmond a couple of weeks saying that parliamentarians were too combative and— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: We should all hold hands. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —that is right—we should hold hands and agree with everything and we should not talk in slogans at each other and we should not be critical of each other; we should be focusing on the united path. So I do not want to be unduly critical of Metiria Turei and the Greens for their philosophy but I am amazed that we still have such people spouting such a simplistic view of the world as if working is not a good thing and taking responsibility for yourself and your family is not something that is important to the community. So the question I ask them is—you know we all agree across all sides of this House that poverty and child poverty in particular is a concern. Nobody wants to live in a society where there are children who are struggling—genuinely struggling—and we have spent a great percentage of the Government activity that we are a part of taking money off some people and giving it to other people in order to try and alleviate that problem. We have not been all that successful in the last 70 years that social welfare organisations in New Zealand have been redistributing a huge amount of money and you ask yourself “Well why hasn’t it been that successful? Why do we continue to have poverty in New Zealand?”. There are a whole lot of reasons for that but part of it is about addressing those fundamentals of restating that important element of responsibility—people taking responsibility for their families and for their own lives. I suppose when you are in Government the question is what do you actually do about it? This Government which I am proud to be part of has done a number of things in that area. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I was not anticipating taking a call in this general debate but I am pleased to have the opportunity because there are several contributions from the Government side that I would like the opportunity to respond to. 
I want to start maybe on the comments made on the Prime Minister’s behalf in question time today in relation to the in-work tax credit. There is an interesting linkage there is there not? Support for children is linked to whether or not their parents are in work. That seems to me and to the Green Party to be an inappropriate linkage. Actually if children require support because of the poverty of their parents they require support. Children ought not to be punished for the circumstances that their parents find themselves in. That is why we favour a process whereby the support for such families—for that 21 percent of children living in poverty in this country a statistic that I am sure we are all embarrassed by and ashamed of—ought not to be related to the circumstances of their parents. It ought to be related simply to the need of their parents. 
But the Prime Minister went on and talked about the importance as indeed we have just heard from Mr Goldsmith of the role that work has in lifting people out of poverty. I do not dispute the fact that work has an important role to play in lifting people out of poverty. Actually education arguably plays a greater role and also really great health circumstances but the fact is that under this Government the number of jobs has not increased so the work is not available for those parents to lift themselves out of poverty. The escape hatch from poverty for 21 percent of New Zealand children is not available to them. 
On the Prime Minister’s behalf in question time there was comment about work readiness instead. Well is it the Government’s intention to extend the in-work tax credit to all of those who are work-ready or who are judged to be work-ready? Those people will have done what is required to make themselves available for work so it will take into account the simple fact that the jobs are not available for those people. 
Louise Upston in her contribution talked about the Greens. She said it was great I think—I may be paraphrasing—that the Greens brought to the House’s attention the growing inequality in this country and talked about— 
Louise Upston 
: It wasn’t quite what I said. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —it may not have been quite what the member was saying—the importance of closing that gap between rich and poor and the importance of creating jobs. She suggested that the Greens said no to everything the Government suggested. Well I think the member proposed that as a problem with the Greens’ approach but I want to respectfully suggest that that is actually a problem with the Government’s approach. The problem the reason that we say no to what it proposes is that the only things it proposes are the unacceptable ones. It proposes mining—mining in national parks for goodness’ sake! It proposes other extractive industries as the answer to our problems. All of those are non-sustainable low-value low-quality jobs if they even create any. 
Louise Upston 
: What about roads that get our goods to export markets? What about roads to get our products to market? 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: What we propose and we have again and again and again—the member talks about roads and we have provided lots of evidence in this House that roads provide very very few jobs. In fact on the one area that does actually provide jobs in that space which is the creation of cycle tracks we are working with the Government. We are working with the Government on home insulation. We have provided many many many proposals to the Government both directly and through this House for ways in which many more jobs could be created and the Government has been saying no to all of those. The Government has rejected all of the proposals that we have made that would be much better investment of the Crown’s dollar in creating jobs. What does that say? What it says is it is not the Green Party that always says no but it is in fact the Government that says no. In the House today Gerry Brownlee on behalf of the Prime Minister was saying no to universalism but also was saying no to targeting. It is the Government that says no and it is wrong. 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I think I would like to remind the members on the other side of the House that this country will not be a good place for us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in. It has been 6 months since I gave my maiden speech on my aspirations as a new member of Parliament and the aspirations I have for this country. I believe it is incomprehensible that this Government which boasts of having business and scientific minds at its disposal is not willing or able to address not only the needs of those from my electorate in Manukau East but also the needs of all New Zealanders in general. 
 Members on the other side of the House need to be reminded of who they are. This is our country. Cherish our natural wonders our natural resources and our history and romance as a sacred heritage for our children and our children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty its riches or its romance. 
If I was to sum up the progress of the National Government up to now it would be in one word and that word would be “betrayal”. But hey why not broaden it and include its coalition partners as well? Poverty is still here. It is still with us. It is not getting any better or brighter. Poverty has a huge negative impact on the general psyche and general well-being of our nation—even the bells and honking horns of sycophantic morning talkback hosts who bang on about their beloved John Key cannot mask that. As I look around my electorate the question keeps popping up: where are the houses promised and where are the better schools health services and jobs? I believe they are still sitting with the committees the talkback hosts and the Government’s thinktank. The poor have been dispossessed of their housing to facilitate the few who do not pay tax. We are still talking about charter schools which we know do not work. Health services have been thrown a few peppercorns through Whanau Ora to shut the natives up. I see that they are roping a few well-intentioned smiley Pacific faces into Whanau Ora just to try to give it a bit of credibility. Pacific people know very well that this does not work and they are throwing good money down a very large public convenience. 
Then there is the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. What Pacific Island affairs? If National does not seem to think it is an important portfolio then what hope is there for the people in my community in Porirua Otara Glen Innes Papatoetoe and so on of South Auckland? You would think that with high-end statistics on most fronts the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs would be given a fair go. Can it not be trusted with enough responsibility to design its own realistic Pacific policies? We need to address the issues that our Pacific communities confront with urgency if we are to make any beneficial process or progress. Many of our poorest spend far too long sleeping on friends’ floors. This in turn creates relationship stresses with their spouses and fanau and aiga who also are poor. They will often be angry and distressed. They will not be supervising their children well enough or caring for them because their capacity to do so is lowered by real options available to them. Many of our people are pouring money into casino gambling machines in the vain hope that they will hit a jackpot. In reality the jackpot for them is either scraping up airfares to Aussie joining the dole queue or receiving Salvation Army social services who not only are doing God’s work but are now struggling with the ever-increasing evil of child poverty. These are the factors that contribute to a bleak future for our people because their physical mental and educational development is restricted. 
Knowing what is right does not mean much unless the Government does what is right. New Zealand First believes in creating wealth for our country not just for the few. We hope our Government wakes up and finds real solutions—real solutions for all New Zealanders. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
Feichanghao. Xiexie. I am proud to be able to stand here today to say what a great job the National-led Government has done and is continuing to do in building a brighter future for New Zealanders. By getting on with the job of responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and rebuilding Christchurch National is delivering on making New Zealand the best place to live raise children and retire comfortably. 
I know that members of the Opposition will always dispute what we have achieved since we became the Government in 2008. It goes without saying that despite having experienced a global financial crisis which unfortunately is continuing in many parts of the world New Zealand is well positioned to grow and prosper. National has worked extremely hard to help the less fortunate in our society but more important National recognises that economic development is the key to giving people a better standard of living. 
In Chinese philosophy the concept of yin and yang describes how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are linked and how they feed off each other to balance and benefit each other. I am not referring to National’s relationship with Labour or the Greens but to our growing relationship with China the second-largest economy in the world. As you know New Zealand and China are so different in terms of land size history culture language and in particular population. There are over 1.3 billion in China against New Zealand’s population of 4.4 million yet we are moving closer together which will benefit both countries. 
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the diplomatic ties between our two countries. I have been to numerous events to commemorate this auspicious year and many of these events are organised by local Chinese communities in New Zealand who are proud of both their mother country and their adopted country. China’s continuous growth has benefited New Zealand as our trade with China has expanded enormously. In 1991 New Zealand’s exports to China were just $0.17 billion or 1.1 percent of our total exports. In 2001 they were $1 billion or 3.3 percent of our total exports. In 2008 we signed a free-trade agreement with China. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who signed? Who signed? 
Dr JIAN YANG 
: I will acknowledge the then Labour Government. Unfortunately the current Labour Party no longer has strategic views which are essential for economic growth. It is living in poverty—a poverty of ideas. For instance it no longer supports our foreign investment. After that agreement was signed in 2008 two-way trade between New Zealand and China grew by 150 percent in 3 years. In 2011 the volume of bilateral trade reached $13.3 billion. In the year ended March 2012 New Zealand exports to China reached $5.9 billion or 12.5 percent of our total exports. China is now our second-largest trading partner and may well be the largest before too long. 
We are also benefiting from an upsurge in Chinese tourists. In the year ended June 2012 Chinese tourists numbered 175000—a rise of about 43000 over the previous year. Tourism supports nearly one job in 10 in New Zealand and directly or indirectly contributes almost 10 percent of New Zealand GDP. Already ordinary New Zealanders are reaping the benefits of National’s economic plan which invests in their future. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill 
In Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave of the Committee for both parts and the title and commencement clauses of the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 August. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 When I took the call before we ended debating a couple of weeks ago I stood up and said that gangs were cancerous corrosive and had absolutely no place in New Zealand society. I absolutely stand by that point of view. I congratulate Todd McClay on bringing this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill to the House and I congratulate those members who are prepared to support it. I am very disappointed that there are some parties in this House that have seen fit to become almost apologists for gangs that have seen fit to reject this piece of legislation and that have seen fit to stand by gangs and say that it is OK for them to wear gang insignia in public places and Government buildings and to intimidate members of the public which is exactly what this piece of legislation is aiming to stop. 
I congratulate those parties that are supporting it. I congratulate New Zealand First on its stand in this House on saying that it is not good enough for gangs to be wearing their gang patches in Government buildings and it is not good enough for gangs to be intimidating members of the public. Gangs stand for crime. Gangs stand for all things that are bad about the underworld in this country. I think any moves that this Parliament can make to try to stop gangs from having a prevalent place in New Zealand society should be welcomed should be accepted and should be supported in this Parliament. 
Finally before I finish my 4 minutes I just want to say that I absolutely reject some of the comments that have been made in the media recently by a member of this House Hone Harawira. Mr Harawira has seen fit to attack Todd McClay on the basis of the colour of his hair and the colour of his eyes. That is absolutely outrageous. To say that attacking gangs that bringing a piece of legislation to this House that aims to stop gang intimidation is wrong and to say it is a racist piece of legislation is absolutely wrong despicable and should not be accepted by anyone in this country. 
Todd McClay is doing New Zealanders a favour. Todd McClay is standing in this House bringing in a piece of legislation to try to make New Zealand safer to try to make Government buildings and local government buildings safer and to say to New Zealanders that gangs have no place in this country. It is uncool it is wrong and we should not have a situation where gangs can wear their insignia can wear their gang patches in public buildings. The gang patch itself is what the gangs love to show. It is the gang patch itself that shows solidarity amongst the gang members. We do not want criminals to be showing solidarity out there in the community. We do not want criminals to be coming into public buildings public libraries public swimming pools or anything like that to show off their colours to show off their supposed manliness because they think it is cool to be gang members and to be wearing their patches and their colours. 
This is a very good piece of legislation. I absolutely congratulate the parties in this House that are prepared to stand up and say that gangs have no place in this society and we do not want them in our public buildings and we do not want them in our local government buildings. This House should be supporting moves to restrict gangs and the wearing of their patches. I say this bill is absolutely overdue is necessary and should be supported by the whole House. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to make my contribution on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. There is one point that the last speaker Jami-Lee Ross made that I agree with and that is about what gangs typically engage in which is criminal activity. They try to conceal their criminal activity through their gang activities. It is for that reason that this bill should be voted down because it is totally hopeless it will contribute nothing to the problem of dealing with criminal activity in gangs and it is an attempt at gesture-politics that will do nothing. It is cynical it is poorly motivated it is a dumb bill and a dumb piece of legislation. The people on whose behalf I feel embarrassed actually are members like my good friend from Rodney whose name escapes me for the moment—I know his first name but— 
Hon Member 
: He’s a good friend but you don’t know his name. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: You do not need to know a friend’s name to get on well with him. 
Louise Upston 
: Mark Mitchell. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Mark Mitchell a former serving officer and another member Chester Borrows another former member of the police force will know what it means to deal with gangs will know what they do will know what it takes to police them and will know the insidious business they are involved in. 
The one I feel most embarrassed on behalf of is Mike Sabin because Mike Sabin in his life prior to coming to this House made a very honourable contribution to his community to New Zealand when he left his role as a high-quality high-performing member of the police force to embark on a personal campaign to try to rid this country of the scourge of methamphetamine and methamphetamine dealing and to educate people families and communities about it. He knew like most former serving police officers do that the gangs are running that insidious nasty evil drug as a business. They do it as a business. So any step that can be taken to address that to do it down to get rid of it should be adopted embraced and wholeheartedly supported. 
This bill is not that step. This bill is hopeless because it does not address that sort of issue at all. It is window dressing of the worst order. Addressing the event that a gang member turns up in a public library to return his or her books with their patch on their back will not address the criminal activity of gangs. Michael Laws found this out in Whanganui and with Chester Borrow’s support—oddly enough—passed the by-law until it was overturned by the court of course to rid the main street of Whanganui of gang patches. Of course after all the hubbub all the debate and all the noise they created about it the people they ended up persuading to stay away from the main street of Whanganui were not the gangs; they were the good citizens and the good burghers of Whanganui who saw all the messages heard all the debates and thought: “Gee it is a pretty intimidating place to be on Victoria Street Whanganui. I am not going down there. I am not going down to the public parks of Whanganui.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The shops are closed. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: The shops are closed. It did in good businesses that were dependent on good foot traffic and they were destroyed by that silly gesture. What has happened to gang activity in Whanganui? Nothing. Nothing has changed. They are still there. They are still there doing their nasty evil trade their nasty evil business. They still wear their gang patches in most of Whanganui. It did nothing—it did nothing. So that is the problem with this bill. It gives members who feel inadequate the ability to stand up in this House puff their chest out sound tough and look like they are doing something but actually they are doing nothing. That is the disappointing thing about this bill. 
What is very sad is that we have come all this way and after all these years this Government has been able to do nothing to address the very serious problems of gang-driven gang-inspired crime. This bill is a joke. It will achieve nothing it does even less and it is for that reason that it should be voted down. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to stand in support of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I just want to come back to what my colleague Mr Little said. Let us have a look at what a gang patch actually means. What does a gang patch mean? What does it signify? How does a prospective gang member actually earn the right to wear a gang patch? Is it because he helps an elderly woman across the street? Is it because he has learnt how to tie a bowline knot or demonstrated an ability to build a campfire? No it is not. 
Normally a prospect will start with what gangs consider the small stuff: breaking into people’s homes stealing anything they can find of value and often damaging people’s homes. And you know what? They may even leave a calling card like urinating or defecating on furniture or bedding. Then there will be the progression into armed robberies serious assaults and drug offences. But to really prove that they are serious about becoming a good patched gang member they will find a victim to rape or to really make a name for themselves they might even kill someone. Every time you look at a gang patch or insignia ask yourself this question: what crime against our society has that person committed and how many victims have been left in the wake of their efforts to earn that patch? 
Although I stand here now proud to be a member of this Parliament there was a time when in a previous role I was required to deal with gang members constantly. I can assure this House that an important goal for any gang or gang member is to develop a reputation for being as dangerous menacing and intimidatory as possible whether this is through reputation or appearance. The wearing of a gang patch is designed to do two things and two things only. One is to identify the gang that they are a member of and the other thing is to try to intimidate all those around them. 
I just want to congratulate Minister Tolley and Minister Collins because—you are right Mr Little—they are turning up the heat on gangs and have been turning up the heat on gangs since 2008. And we have to keep doing that. We have to keep doing that. I congratulate my colleague—I congratulate my colleague— 
Todd McClay 
: Todd McClay. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: —Todd McClay. I just want to raise something and speak about something that was brought up through the media by Mr Harawira. I cannot use the exact words that he said but basically he indicated that you know what Mr McClay does not really know anything about gangs so what the hell is he talking about? Well I can assure you after having worked in Rotorua and Mr McClay is the representative for Rotorua that although it is a wonderful place—it has got the lakes it has got geothermal activity and it has got lots of cultural events there—there is one thing it does suffer from and that is a gang problem. It has a bad gang problem. So Mr McClay witnesses the effects of that and witnesses the destruction of his community. In actual fact there are probably not many MPs around the country who have to deal with and confront gang problems as much as Mr McClay does. I congratulate him on bringing this bill to the House. He could have made it a local bill and it is not. It is a bill that is going to have an impact nationally on the negative effects that our communities suffer in relation to gangs. 
I would just like to say that when my mum or my daughters walk into a Government office I do not want them to have to see gang members walking around with patches on because those patches signify one thing and that is that they have committed crimes against our society. It is as simple as that. Thank you. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I would like to take a very short call to add my voice to that of Jan Logie in spelling out the Green Party’s opposition to this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. The goal of creating public spaces free from intimidation is a worthy one and we have heard a lot from both sides of the House about how gangs can be the sources of that intimidation. Fundamentally this debate is not about being soft or tough on crime. It is about finding practical solutions that actually achieve the outcomes and the sort of society that we want. I think this bill is a pretty good example in that banning gang insignia is really outlawing or trying to address the symptoms but not the cause of the problem. If we do not address the cause of the problem then we are never going to resolve it. 
I think we can all agree that we want a safer society. Certainly I am sure the member who brought this bill to the House Todd McClay is earnest in his desire to do so. So we should undertake a reasonable discussion as to how to create a safer society and where this bill fits into that context. Unfortunately banning people from wearing gang patches is at best a very ineffective way. I have to agree with Andrew Little who spoke earlier. It sounds like a good idea and it sounds like we are being tough on those bad gang members but on closer inspection the flaws become quite obvious. Numerous studies have noted that poverty unemployment the absence of meaningful jobs social disorganisation and really just exclusion from mainstream society are what contribute to the presence of and membership in gangs. Economic and social inequality which as we have seen is at an all-time high only exacerbates these factors. So dealing effectively with the issue of gangs requires us to look hard at the causes of poverty and inequality. We need to robustly address those. Without those efforts this bill serves only to make it worse. It disproportionately isolates and confronts people at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum who are already excluded from mainstream society. Why would they be motivated to be constructive members of society if they are consistently discriminated against and excluded from the benefits of the wealth that is being gained by a small percentage of the population? 
The provisions in clauses 7(1) and 8 set the scene for increased confrontation with gang members who may not be involved in intimidating behaviour at the time when police confront them. I think Charles Chauvel made the point well that there is already a provision in the Crimes Act to deal with individuals or groups who behave aggressively anywhere not just on Government premises. So why is this legislation necessary if not just to further exclude a group of marginalised people whom we should be trying to encourage to become constructive members of society? Creating opportunities to confront with force individuals who are deemed intimidating purely by their association with a certain group rather than by their actual behaviour by definition increases the scope for violent confrontation on Government premises. How is that conducive to the goal that is stated in the bill? How is that conducive to the very worthwhile goal of creating a safer environment? 
We all want to work to make our society free of crime and intimidation. To do that we need to address the root causes that drive people to criminal activity in gangs and to support the vulnerable people within gangs to engage in positive societal contributions. Some already do so but obviously there is a lot more scope to create those opportunities through a rational approach to reduce gang membership in the future. I do not think banning people from wearing gang insignia is going to discourage them from being members of gangs. So stigmatising groups and individuals in a blanket unsophisticated manner will not achieve the outcomes that I am sure the member would like to achieve and nobody should be celebrating a bill that fails to address the core issues. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 Since the start of the first reading of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill 2 weeks ago there has been significant interest in it around the country. I have received letters emails and phone calls of support and it is true to also say that there are those who have issue with this piece of legislation. Indeed I welcome all those who have made contact with me and I thank them for it. This has been an interesting debate both 2 weeks ago and again today. Notably it suggests to me that New Zealanders not only deserve to have a say on this issue but want to have a say on this issue. Therefore I ask the House to send it to a select committee. 
Can I say to the last speaker Julie Anne Genter that I welcome her comments and the way she put them to the House. This bill will not address all issues around gangs. Indeed I have never stood here in this Parliament and said that it will. But what I think is important is that we have the opportunity to talk about not only the significant harm that gangs do in all parts of our community where they are and where they operate but some of the reasons why so many young people are attracted to them. When this bill is sent to the Law and Order Committee I would encourage members of the Green Party—and indeed all parties of this Parliament—to come with an open mind to talk about this issue and the harm that it does not only in respect of the measures in the bill but to in some way start to address this. 
The Labour Party has said that it will vote against this bill. I would say that this is disappointing. It is disappointing from the point of view that I think it is party politics that suggests this rather than the recognition of the challenges we face around gangs and gang membership. Mr Chauvel in his speech to the House said that the law can already deal with this issue that the law can deal with it by way of trespass. One of the things that I think is most important is that we encourage New Zealanders mums and dads to care more about their children. I encourage gang members who care about their children to go to their schools to support them and to help them. I am not sure it happens anywhere near as much as it should. If it did happen more—indeed as Ms Genter has said—perhaps some of the effects of gangs upon families and the way young people are attracted to these gangs would lessen. 
What this piece of legislation says to a gang member is that if that person wants to go to a school or a kindergarten to support a child that person has a right to do so. In so doing we say they must leave their gang patch or insignia behind because this is a place of learning. It does not say to that person who wears a gang patch that they cannot go to that school. Indeed what it says is just that they cannot wear that gang insignia. A trespass notice would mean that that parent was a trespasser at that school for an ongoing period of time. This legislation will not stop New Zealanders from going to seek support from their Government or from their council or from going to a hospital or a school. It will merely say that we society put conditions around that. One of them is that patches that stand for harm in our communities will not be acceptable and therefore if you choose to wear that you will break the law. Equally these members of gangs may choose not to do it. 
I ask the Labour Party to please think deeply about this when the bill does go to the committee and come with some rational discussion around it about how we deal with the influence of gangs in this country. There are others who have said that the Labour Party Opposition is weak on crime and that this is something that it will not support. I do not want to get into discussion or debate around this today. I ask the members opposite to have an open mind to come forward to the committee to be responsible and to think about the harm that gangs do. 
Hone Harawira raised some issues outside of this House around race. I do not want to dignify his comments with a response except to say that this issue deals in the same way with all New Zealanders who put on a patch and who choose to harm others. It is not an issue of race. What I would say is that Mr Harawira is right: young Maori are harmed by gangs more than any other group in this society. Gangs attract them they pull them in they ask them to commit crimes on their behalf and then they send them to jail on their behalf. I believe we in this House have an obligation to think more seriously about this. 
I want to thank the Public Service Association for agreeing to meet with me. We have had a discussion about some of its concerns. I have agreed to work closely with it to make sure that its workers and others in the Public Service are not intimidated by gang members and that this is a piece of legislation that could work for them. 
I want to thank members of New Zealand First for their support and their courageous stand on this bill and also the ACT Party and United Future for their support. This bill will be sent to the Law and Order Committee. I would ask the committee to look at the list of gangs that are mentioned to see whether it is appropriate for them to be there to question that and to look for other organisations that should also be there. 
In conclusion before we vote gangs cause harm in our society. They ruin people’s lives they destroy families they cause misery and they cause intimidation. This bill sends a clear message to them: this House puts the rights of responsible members of our community before those of criminals. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Honourable members just before I declare the vote can I just advise members of the House that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of a vote. It can be seen as intimidation and could eventually lead to a breach of privilege. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee. 
State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate that the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. This is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It is built on the back of 80-plus percent of New Zealanders who are opposed to their State-owned assets being sold in part or in whole offshore or being sold back to them and having to use their money for a second time to buy back what they already own. In essence the bill is about protecting the remaining strategic assets that we have on the schedule—that is New Zealand Post Kiwibank KiwiRail Radio New Zealand and others—for future generations. Any Government under this piece of legislation trying to sell these assets will need a 75 percent majority in Parliament or to win a referendum. That is a fair policy. The bill ensures that strategic asset sales will need to pass a higher hurdle than they have in recent times with this Government which has used every device in Parliament in the face of rising public angst and opposition to ram through asset sales legislation abusing the constitutionality of the select committee process and Parliament as a whole. 
This will be I have said publicly an acid test for the Government because if it is the Government’s intention not to proceed with other asset sales it will support this bill. This bill was not drawn from the ballot until after the asset sales legislation was rammed through by the Government and those assets that are now on the block of course are outside the schedule so this bill deals with those that are inside the schedule. But I have to say for the record that if it went to the select committee the Labour Opposition would not be opposed to amending this legislation to bring those assets that are now outside the schedule and threatened with sale back inside it but that is for another day. We would be very happy to accept and propose that amendment. This is about enshrining and protecting what we have left and if the Government’s intention is to sell only those assets that it took out of the schedule—i.e. Solid Energy Mighty River Power Genesis Meridian and Air New Zealand—then it would have no problem supporting this legislation. If it does not support this legislation if it does not accept this piece of legislation and back it we will know that despite the musings of Bill English back in 2008 and again in 2010 about for instance finding it acceptable to sell off KiwiRail it has an open intent to proceed beyond those assets that it has taken out of the schedule to other assets like for instance New Zealand Post KiwiRail Radio New Zealand Kiwibank and others. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation. 
It will also be interesting to see whether the Hon Peter Dunne votes for this legislation because of course he made a promise not to sell Kiwibank not to sell Radio New Zealand— 
Hon John Banks 
: It’s going nowhere. You’re wasting your time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I know that it is a waste of time for Mr Banks of course because Mr Banks would sell his own grandmother if he had the chance. He would flog everything off. We know that. So my comments are not actually addressed to “Lazarus” the man who has lurched out the crypt and waddled around and come back into Parliament. My comments are not addressed to him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Lazarus was more positive than that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Lazarus was more positive that is true. He was a positive human being. But the sort of political cadaver that has come out of the crypt and back into Parliament I do not address my comments to him at all. It is a waste of time an utter waste of time. In fact actually it is a waste of time addressing any comments to Mr Banks because 30 seconds after you say something he will have forgotten them of course because he has amnesia. With your leave Mr Assistant Speaker I am happy to repeat my speech twice or in triplicate so that he will actually remember the words or perhaps his own name. 
But more seriously this is a simple choice for Parliament. Mr Banks can say that it is a waste of time but it is a simple choice. It is a simple choice that says that we are not prepared to stand by and allow a Government holus-bolus to go and sell off the strategic assets that we have. We know 80 percent of New Zealanders are against the National Government selling the assets it has put on the block now. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Bollocks. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We know that—what was that? I will not actually use the “b” word that Mr Coleman used because I think it was in relation to male anatomy or something like that and it would not be appropriate. But it is not rubbish to say that 80 percent of New Zealanders oppose these asset sales. It is not rubbish at all. Dr Coleman will remember those remarks as we take this fight out and when we get the referendum. We will have very little talk about mandates when the New Zealand people get a chance to put this to a vote in a referendum. So the choice for the National Party is very very simple. I invite Dr Coleman to get up tonight. We know that John Banks would sell anything he could but I invite Dr Coleman and the other Ministers to get up and tell us whether they are prepared to support the bill. If they are not prepared to support the bill then that tells us clearly that this Government does have an intent to go well beyond at some future date the assets it has put on the block. Are they prepared to answer this question then: is Dr Coleman prepared to guarantee that he will not sell KiwiRail in part or whole whilst he is in Government? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Well there are no plans to. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry? Hang on let us hear it. Sorry? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: There are no plans to. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh there are no plans to. Well that is in stark contrast to what Steven Joyce said. He said that he could not give a guarantee. He could not give a guarantee that KiwiRail would not be put on the block. So there are no plans to. That is not a guarantee of anything. Those are weasel words which say that it could well be on the block. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s what Roger Douglas used to say when it was going to happen that afternoon: “No current plans.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed. And I suspect that Dr Coleman would probably be the last person to be told anyway. But let us look at this— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: John Banks would forget. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And John Banks would forget that is right; he would forget which way the washroom was and the Cabinet room was and his own name. What we have seen with the passage of the State-owned enterprises legislation is that one vote in this Parliament one vote out of 120 members of Parliament kissed goodbye to some seriously heavy-duty assets that are bringing in millions and billions of dollars for this country. It was down to one vote. I think Kiwis by their very nature think it should not be down to one vote and there should be a proper process. What this bill does is it sets in place a higher hurdle. If the Government will not support it then the Government has signalled to the people of New Zealand as have Mr Dunne and “Rumpelstiltskin” in the corner that it is prepared to actually sell and go further than those assets that are on the block. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there were a few dwarves—one was Dopey I think but we will not go there or Sleepy who I think had amnesia as well. 
But the point is that if the Government representatives are not prepared to support the legislation then I invite them to get up and tell us whether they will not go beyond in terms of selling assets those that they have taken out of the schedule. Will they sell additional assets? Will they guarantee that they will not sell additional assets? What this bill will do whether it is up or down tonight is tell the New Zealand people very clearly what the agenda is what the agenda could be and what the Government’s intent is. I invite the House to support this legislation. I look forward to the contributions. I know we will have some very strange speeches. But the acid test for this crew—not him John Banks—and Peter Dunne is that if they do not support this we know that other assets will be on the block. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The last speaker in the debate was in fact the author of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill Mr Cosgrove and he asked Government members to stand up and say whether we would support this legislation. I can categorically say to Mr Cosgrove that the answer is that no we will not be supporting this. You see this is an opportunist piece of legislation that continues a discussion with the public of New Zealand that was held for the whole of last year and that the New Zealand public had an opportunity to vote on. This legislation also is unworkable and I will address that in a moment. 
You see this Labour member’s bill seeks to entrench schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act and schedule 2 of the Crown Entities Act so that removal of any entity from the schedules would require the agreement of 75 percent of the House or a majority of votes in a public referendum. So is that not wonderful? Mr Cosgrove is saying that it would take 75 percent of the members of this House to do anything else around any partial sale or full sale of these assets in the schedules of these two Acts. But what he has not realised is that to amend this legislation or to throw this legislation out if it became law would take a simple majority of the House. So one vote more in favour than against would destroy this piece of legislation which he has thought long and hard about and would get rid of it. 
What I would also say is that in so far as asset sales are concerned Kate Wilkinson last year campaigned on the mixed-ownership model. She campaigned on reducing debt. She campaigned on making sure that the Government was accountable in so far as the economy is concerned. She campaigned on investing in new assets for New Zealanders. And she won that election and went from being a list MP to a constituent MP. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Which seat was that? Which electorate? 
TODD McCLAY 
: From a list MP to a constituent MP in the seat of Waimakariri. We also had the incumbent MP Mr Cosgrove who has brought this bill before the House. He did not campaign on this piece of legislation. He did not campaign on it. What he did was campaign against the mixed-ownership model the partial sale of assets. He campaigned against the Government getting debt under control investing more in the New Zealand economy and growing our asset base for New Zealanders. What happened in that election? He went from being the constituent MP to a list MP. The people of New Zealand all over New Zealand but in particular people in the Waimakariri electorate had a chance to consider supporting a list MP who was campaigning on a mixed-ownership model of the partial sale of assets or for an incumbent MP who was saying “Don’t sell these assets. Let’s not have the mixed-ownership model.” I can tell you that the people’s voice was clear. 
I also note that one of my colleagues said that during that campaign when Mr Cosgrove realised that it was not going as well as he wanted he de-branded from the Labour Party. The Labour slogans were taken down all over the place. He took them off his hoardings. He got rid of them and he became Clayton Cosgrove man of the people. Well the people did not want him as their man; they wanted a great woman Kate Wilkinson and good on them. 
I want to say that in this bill there are a couple of issues that are of particular concern. One of those is around what has happened in the past and what could happen in the future. The only piece of legislation we have enacted in New Zealand with the same provision currently entrenched in law in this manner is the Electoral Act. That is important because we do not want parties playing around with electoral law just because there may be a bit of political gain in that. Indeed all that Mr Cosgrove is trying to do with this piece of legislation is mislead New Zealanders drag them back to the debate that happened over the whole of last year when John Key as Prime Minister made a case to them. More New Zealanders voted for John Key and the National Party than any other party ever under MMP and actually that was the second election in a row where that was the case. Mr Cosgrove is trying to divert New Zealanders from that and the job at hand. 
Let us have a look at the record of the Labour Party on issues like this which must have motivated Mr Cosgrove to draft this bill to go out and consult with New Zealanders and then to put it in the ballot and bring it to the House. So what has Labour done under the mixed-ownership model previously? Well we know that it never enshrined in law a mixed-ownership model that would guarantee under the law 51 percent ownership of any State asset by the Crown. We know that it did not do that. When it had an opportunity it sold things wholesale left right and in the centre as fast as it could. 
Labour has said that it is opposed to the partial sale of State-owned enterprises. Well with Mr Cosgrove’s member’s bill Labour wants to entrench the ownership of Government shares in State-owned enterprises into law. Yet when those members were last in Government they established a mixed-ownership model for Air New Zealand and they did not do it then. It was all right for them back then with Air New Zealand. But today after not campaigning on this issue after not raising it with the public after going out and saying they were against the mixed-ownership model but being rejected resoundingly by the public and sent back to Opposition—not just sent back to Opposition but with fewer members of Parliament fewer constituent MPs and more list MPs like Mr Cosgrove—now they are in favour of it. Then they sold Government-owned shares in the airline. They sold those shares. They would not entrench them. 
In 2007 they sold 49 percent of the State-owned Spring Creek Mine for millions of dollars to an American multinational. That sale was approved by Trevor Mallard. They did not entrench anything then; they sold it wholesale. And when Labour was in Government the time before that it sold 15 State assets for almost $10 billion in 3 years supported by Phil Goff Annette King and again Trevor Mallard. There was no legislation to entrench anything then; it is just today that they want to do that after having not campaigned on this legislation or gone out to the people of New Zealand to make a case against the mixed-ownership model. New Zealanders voted in a Government that is focused on what is right for this country. 
Labour members also do not include any electricity generation on the list of infrastructure assets that they think must be owned by the Crown and they refuse to commit to buying back a single share sold under the mixed-ownership model. As Mr Cosgrove has challenged us I ask him to stand up and make a commitment that under a Labour Government they would buy back those shares. I recognise that one party has a position on that but the party making the most noise on this issue certainly has not. 
The reason National will not be supporting this legislation is that it does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders. It does nothing about law and order and making people safer in their communities. It does nothing about getting rid of intimidation from gang members. Labour had an opportunity; it did not support that earlier here today. It does nothing about what is important to New Zealanders and why we were elected—re-elected—with an increased vote. This Government is focused on responsible management of the Government’s finances returning us back to surplus and reducing debt building a more competitive and productive economy by investing more in assets for New Zealanders delivering better public services for New Zealanders—something New Zealanders wanted; they voted for it in the past and they will vote for it again—and of course rebuilding Christchurch. If Mr—who is the member who lost his seat to Kate Wilkinson? If Mr Cosgrove had his way then he would get rid of all of that. There would be more debt there would be less responsibility in Government there would be fewer public services delivered for New Zealanders who need them and Christchurch—on the edge of the electorate that he used to be the member of Parliament for and now is no longer—would not be rebuilt. We will not be voting for this legislation and I am appalled that Mr Cosgrove has taken up this House’s time with such an un-useful piece of legislation. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The member opposite Todd McClay had the opportunity to make a reasoned defence of National’s plans to embark on future asset sales but chose not to. I think he has demeaned his party and himself in advancing arguments as spurious as those that he has just done. To launch into an ad hominem attack on my colleague Clayton Cosgrove on the basis of his seat rather than addressing the issues at hand is not worthy of the highest standards of this House. 
He said in one sentence that this bill the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill was unworkable but then provided absolutely not one shred of evidence or argument to say why. Actually the bill is very simple it is very clear and it only takes the Government at its word by entrenching future assets into a 75 percent threshold thereby requiring a broad range of the representatives of New Zealanders to assent before what is the common heritage of all New Zealanders is sold. If we had that kind of requirement the truth is we would have a better informed debate. We would move more carefully through the issues that this Government has run headlong into—things as important and as basic as the Treaty rights debates around water issues. One would have thought the Government would have asked itself before it committed to this sale. The truth is it could not paddle a canoe down the Waikato River to save itself. It could not organise a party in a brewery this lot. It is shameful that it is not prepared— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Keep the analogies going. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We will not go into any ad hominem arguments which so obviously tempt the member sitting just behind me and to my right. 
The argument was raised that the previous Labour Government sold some assets. You know that is factually correct. The problem with that for the Government today is that we learnt from that experience. The difference between a fool and a wise man is that only a fool repeats the same mistakes twice. We have learnt from it. We know that the privatisation of Telecom which both parties worked on was done with an insufficient regulatory framework. We fixed it and we learnt from that. But the Telecom sale did actually include an entrenched Kiwi share obligation now known as the Telecom share obligation which includes restrictions on foreign ownership and provides protections to New Zealand consumers. It was not done with no forethought; it is just that those protections were not strong enough. In my view that privatisation should not have proceeded at all on that basis. 
You know the member then said that there was nothing about gang members and there was nothing about DPB mums. What he was really saying was it is a bill without dog whistles. Well New Zealanders are sick to the back teeth of being dog whistled at while they are on the dole queue. They want to feed their families they want decent jobs and they want a home to live in and the well-heeled members opposite who are troughing in their own tax cuts might laugh but New Zealanders are very concerned about those issues. 
New Zealanders do not want dog whistles; they want solutions. A solution is not selling off the family silver to make up the deficits of today because the Government is devoid of real ideas to grow the pie to build high-value manufacturing and to build a high performance economy. Those so-called stewards of the public interest have come up short—they have come up short. A few chips short of a Happy Meal as the kids would say—a few ideas short of a strategy. Privatisation of existing assets to simply transfer the value to a foreign owner is not a strategy. If it is such a good strategy we say to the Government to have the courage of its convictions and give us a 75 percent threshold. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is one thing that needs to be put on the public record today and that is that the people of Waimakariri are great judges of character. The ultimate test was election day last year when they transferred the mantle of authority from that Labour member Clayton Cosgrove to the member we have got now for Waimakariri Kate Wilkinson. That proves that the people of “Waimak” are great judges of character. They would not have— 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I noticed that Mr Banks has notes and I move that we allow him to read from his notes in case he forgets his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member will sit down. That is not a point of order and it is up to the Speaker to judge. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: The sponsor of this bill is the former member for “Waimak” who has been transferred to the Labour Party list and so he should. Like the sponsor of this bill this bill will be unplugged. Like the sponsor’s head this bill will be unplugged by the National-ACT coalition this afternoon in Parliament. 
The bill begins with an own goal—the bill begins with an own goal. The explanatory note tells us: “Once a State enterprise or Crown entity company has been omitted from [the Act] a shareholding Minister may sell … the enterprise or company. Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” That is what it says in the explanatory note of this silly little bill sponsored by this silly little fellow formerly the member for “Waimak” who is now transferred rightfully on to the Labour Party list—low on the list at that. 
We do not hear rational evidence based on policy from the Labour Party like we used to. The Labour Party electorate of “Waimak” used to have a member called Mike Moore and this front-bench list member sponsoring this bill is no Mike Moore—he is no Mike Moore. Mike Moore was a tower of a man short in height but tall in stature in this Parliament and “mini-Mike” the sponsor of this bill is no Mike Moore. But this is what Mike Moore had to say about this— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that you were listening to the member speaking and you will reprimand him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a very robust debate. There have been a number of interjections and I guess the member is reacting to them but I would ask the member to speak to the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you indicating you were not listening to what the member said? Because if you were you would have required him to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was listening but I— 
Hon Chris Tremain 
: The member who initiated this debate used all sorts of expletives about the member down in front. It is tragic for this member to stand now and claim that the member in front of me should not be using those sorts of words. It is crazy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard enough. It is one all. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: The World Trade Organization was ably led by a man that this side of the House promoted to the World Trade Organization the former Labour front-bencher Mike Moore. The sponsor of this bill is—sure as hell—no Mike Moore. More recently this is what the real Mike Moore wrote and this is what he would have to say about this bill: “What’s the common denominator in success and failure? Open economies always do better. Trade and competition drive up better results and [help to combat] corruption as well as allocate resources more efficiently. Private ownership spread through society works.” That is what the former front-bench member of the Labour Party the Rt Hon Mike Moore had to say about free trade and private ownership. 
But the days of Mike Moore towering above this House no longer exist. What do they have today? They have the member of the Labour Party who formerly represented “Waimak” as the towering pigmy of former member Mike Moore who was the World Trade— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Righto I have heard enough. The member will concentrate on the contents of the bill. This is the first reading of the bill and we want to hear the substance of the bill. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: The problem with the bill is that it will not work. The introductory remarks of the bill state that a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset. What is the bill all about if a shareholding Minister may sell a public asset enterprise or company? “Future parliaments would thereby be limited in their ability to reverse such changes.” We know that Governments are not good owners of public cash-earning assets. We know that the private sector can run public assets better than the public sector. Labour needs this legislation because it cannot defend public ownership on evidence. These have been studied to death. Public or private ownership of assets has been studied to death in many many studies and the jury is in. Private enterprise runs businesses better than the Government can. That is why we do not need this bill and that is why members on this side of the House in the majority will be voting this bill down. 
When I look at bills like this one today it is little wonder that the good people of “Waimak” made a solid decision and chose Kate Wilkinson who will be voting against this bill today and who will be voting down this bill today on behalf of the people of “Waimak”. We will be voting it down today on behalf of the people of Epsom. The ACT Party opposes this bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. In between the ad hominem attacks that have characterised most of the Government speeches so far in this bill there has actually been some interesting debate around the role of State ownership and I would like to talk a little bit about that. 
The Green Party believes in a mixed ownership of the New Zealand economy in the sense that we have a combination of the State sector but also the private sector. I think that if you look at most successful modern economies they involve a combination of the two. For that reason the Green Party just does not have the problem with the role of State energy companies in our economy that clearly the ACT Party has and also the National Party has. 
In this debate around State ownership the Hon John Banks did make an interesting point. He said that private management is always better. That was the essence of his argument. It is interesting to look at the most recent case which is of course Mighty River Power. Mighty River Power was recently given the award for best energy company of the year in New Zealand. There are a number of energy companies in New Zealand. Mighty River Power is one of the State-owned ones but there are a number of others that are privately owned. TrustPower is one of them for example and Contact Energy is the other major one. There is competition within New Zealand between State-owned energy companies as well as privately owned energy companies or companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange. When that competition was put to the test by the peers—the peers in the industry considered these different energy companies—they came to the conclusion most recently that the best energy company and electricity company in particular in New Zealand was Mighty River Power. That I think demonstrates that it is not always the case that private sector managers are always better than public sector managers. 
There are many other criteria you could use to make this assessment. If we were to look at the case of Air New Zealand after it was privatised and handed over to private sector managers they immediately bankrupted the company when they made a very poor decision to buy Ansett Australia. As a result the State had to step in again to rescue that company. So we have numerous examples where private sector companies have made very poor decisions that resulted in quite considerable economic damage to New Zealand and public sector companies or State-owned companies have made good decisions and have been good managers. No doubt the reverse is also true. So to say point-blank as a kind of blanket argument that private sector managers always do better is to argue against the evidence. The evidence actually is a bit more mixed than that and it is not necessarily directly related to whether it is State-owned or privately managed. I think that that is very important to this debate. 
Putting aside the question of who are better managers—because you simply cannot argue in a New Zealand context that looking at the energy companies the private sector energy managers are always better—the question is what the characteristics of the New Zealand economy are that mean it would be a bad idea to privatise the energy companies. One of the characteristics is that in fact it is a small open economy that runs a large current account deficit and the reference to Mike Moore is I think pertinent in this respect. As a small open economy if these energy companies were privatised it is very likely that they would simply fall into overseas ownership over time. This is of course what happened with Contact Energy. 
An economy that consistently runs a current account deficit has this problem. How do you fund a current account deficit? There are three ways: the main two ways are you sell assets or you borrow and of course the third way is you print money. The main two ways are to borrow or to sell assets. Once these important companies were privatised if the Government went down that route it is very likely over time that they would fall into overseas ownership. That would add to New Zealand’s current account deficit and that is a long-term strategic problem for New Zealand. 
In particular in relation to the energy companies that the Government is talking about privatising the Green Party has gone to some length to put up a positive alternative and that is that these energy companies should be part of a renewable energy sector—an export sector to the rest of the world. Mighty River Power is already exporting geothermal technology to the world and Meridian Energy is doing the same with some of its renewable projects. This should be New Zealand’s next Fonterra. We should be world leaders in renewable energy exports but we can do that only if we keep these companies with their headquarters in New Zealand and with their research and development maintained in New Zealand and that means keeping them in State ownership. That does not mean that they do not partner with the private sector. Of course they should partner with the private sector. But if we are to get the real economic advantages from a renewable energy export sector in New Zealand we need to keep these companies in public ownership and that is why the Green Party has taken that position. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I have to admire the indefatigable nature of Mr Cosgrove. There is no doubt that we fought an election on this very issue where it was front and centre right throughout the election. They lost so the legislation for the mixed-ownership model programme was brought before the House. Mr Cosgrove fought very valiantly at every stage at every step and through the select committee process. Now having failed in that area we have this bill. I of course do not want to engage in any ad hominem attacks and like I say I spent the weekend listening to the Remuera lunch club when they raised the matter of the House engaging in all sorts of attacks and that we need to work together. So I want to focus on the broader issues of this bill and the broader constitutional issue about how often we should be constraining ourselves in this way. 
It seems to me that this bill which is requiring 75 percent support for the Government to sell such things would want to freeze-frame the current situation the current status and the current asset list of the Government for ever and a day. The Government is creating new assets all the time every day and if we were to pass this bill we would certainly be reducing the flexibility of the Government and our ability to respond to circumstances as they arrive. I do find it hard to imagine that Mr Cosgrove would be introducing such a bill if indeed he was in Government. So I will be very interested to see. I am a little bit nervous that this bill will not pass this time round but I will keep a copy of it and I will be very interested to see whether in 10 years’ time or 9 years’ time when Mr Cosgrove does get another chance to be a Minister he reintroduces this bill. I do not think he would like to have it constraining his activity when he is in Government. 
Indeed I have been hosting these 40 or 50 young people in this building at the moment and they are trying to work out whether the country needs a new constitution and whether we need to change our constitutional arrangements. This very issue of whether Governments should be shackled by entrenched legislation is one of the ones that they are wrestling with at the moment. There are only two pieces of legislation I understand that are entrenched in this way and they relate to some very fundamental aspects of our governmental arrangements so to throw this one into the box alongside them does seem rather bizarre. 
But it is worth restating before I finish just why we are involved in this mixed-ownership model process and that is all about building a more competitive and productive economy based on savings and investment and moving away from debt and borrowing and relying on foreign lenders. In essence this programme is about freeing up some of the capital that we have held up in minority stakes in these large companies and allowing the Government to purchase new assets without borrowing more on financial markets at this difficult time. That is a very sound and sensible policy. The Opposition I accept does not agree with it but unfortunately it lost the argument so here we are debating this bill. The Opposition is filling the ballot with all sorts of strange pieces of legislation at the moment. I am afraid that I will not be supporting it. Thank you very much. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the State-owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill which has been brought to the House by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. New Zealand First of course will be supporting this bill because protecting our State assets and keeping the assets of the Crown in State ownership is certainly a fundamental principle of New Zealand First. 
This country has but a small population somewhere between 4.5 million people and a little bit more than that plus another 1 million New Zealanders living abroad. We have the same geographic area as the UK which has 70 million - odd people. In order to provide the necessary infrastructure for a small population of 4.5 million people this country over many many many decades and the many great people who have gone before us in this House have had the foresight and the inspiration to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure that what was about 2 million people when I was born and growing up and has now grown to 4.5 million people could have what this country required in terms of reasonably good infrastructure for a First World country—almost on a par with that of our former mother country Great Britain. 
Most of us in this House would be very proud to see the infrastructure this country has developed in the form of our railways our roads our national airline our transmission lines or our national grid our power companies throughout New Zealand our Television New Zealand—the former New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation—Radio New Zealand and many of the other significant entities that make up the framework and the fabric and in fact the backbone of this small country. Without the State backing provided to many of those entities they simply would not have grown to the size that they are today because private enterprise and personal investors simply would not have been able to build up that infrastructure in New Zealand to the point where it is today. So we can be very thankful and very proud of our forebears and those who went before us the many Ministers members of Parliament and people within the bureaucracy local government within New Zealand and all sorts of parts of the framework of government in New Zealand who have helped build up what we have today. 
Therefore this is a very sensible bill. It is sensible to say to this House that unless three-quarters of the people in this House support selling off some of these very very important assets which my grandfather my grandmother your grandfather your great-grandfather your great-great-grandfather and beyond helped build up we should really not be considering doing it. I am reminded of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters pointed out to me a few months ago. He can recall the saying of— 
John Hayes 
: Mike Moore? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: No Sir Keith Holyoake actually. Thank you. Sir Keith Holyoake had a saying. He used to say that unless at least 60 percent of the people within the House of Representatives would support something he certainly would not ramrod it through. He would not push something through unless he had at least 60 percent support for it. Yet this Government is prepared to do something with a slim 51 percent majority—a paper-thin you know breath of a majority. I like the thought of going back to a situation where three-quarters of the House—75 percent—would make sure that things were protected where if things were to be sold off by far the majority of the House had to have considered it properly and agreed to it. 
This bill also refers to a referendum and again I would support this. It states that should there not be support from 75 percent of the House there should have to be support from a majority of voters in a referendum. Again New Zealand First supports this because if we go to the people in a referendum and they support something of this nature we should be listening to them. 
At the present time the majority of New Zealanders are saying we should not be selling State assets. Most of the polls are showing that 70 or 80 percent think we should not be. This bill brings that in. This a good piece of work. We certainly hope that all parties in this House will give it full consideration. Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I would like to begin by reminding Mr Andrew Williams who just made that contribution that his much-admired leader Winston Peters was the champion of selling assets when he was the Treasurer in the late 1990s. His signature is actually on the documents that enabled the Government to sell its shares in Auckland International Airport. Just for the record and for Mr Andrew Williams I would like to say that at the time Mr Winston Peters the leader of New Zealand First said that the sale of shares in the Auckland International Airport was to be celebrated as popular capitalism—popular capitalism. So my challenge to Andrew Williams and to New Zealand First is that it is awful double standards. When Winston Peters is a Minister and a Treasurer he signs documents to enable the quite sensible floating of a very successful company like Auckland International Airport but now that he happens to be in Opposition he sings a very different tune. That just shows not only how shallow the argument is but also how shallow this bill is the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. 
Let me come to the sponsor of this bill Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I have a very simple question for Mr Cosgrove. Where was he when the previous Labour Government in 2007 sold 49 percent of the shares in the Spring Creek Mine? I have gone back and looked at the Cabinet papers. 
 Clayton Cosgrove was in the Cabinet room when 49 percent a shareholding worth tens of millions of dollars was sold by the previous Labour Government. Did Mr Cosgrove on that occasion say that that sale of shares cannot proceed until such time— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: All it did was delay the closure. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —as there is a 75 percent majority as proposed by this bill? Of course not. He did not say boo. In fact Mr Mallard is interjecting. Mr Mallard’s signature is on the papers that nailed a sale— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Proud of it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —of 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine. Mr Mallard has just cried out in the House that he is proud of that. So now we know the policy of the Labour Party. When Labour sells shares in State companies it is a good thing. When some other Government sells shares suddenly it becomes a bad thing and that certainly does not stand up to any sort of integrity in terms of policy and history. 
I do want to take it back because in my early days of involvement in politics I remember very well in Christchurch that Clayton Cosgrove was a campaign worker for Mike Moore. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I was 14 years old. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I was not that much older. But Mr Cosgrove I remember it very well because at that time there was a Labour Government. It was not just selling a little bit of assets. It sold 20 State-owned enterprises which in today’s terms would be worth over $30 billion. And where was Mr Cosgrove? Mr Cosgrove was very strongly supporting those sales. Was he demanding at that time? I will tell you the difference Mr Cosgrove. Let me explain the difference. In 2011 National went to the electorate with a very clear policy around mixed ownership. What was different Mr Cosgrove was that when Labour sold a large number—100 percent—of the shares in a large number of State businesses there was absolutely no mandate at all and that is really the difference. The difference between— 
Andrew Little 
: Why didn’t you buy them back? Why didn’t your Government buy them back? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Andrew Little chips in. I would love him to say where he was when he was the Labour Party president and 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine were sold. Where was Mr Little? Mr Little was silent and that is where— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do not want to make a long speech on this bill the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill. I would note going from the last point that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove was I think at the time a fourth-former at St Bede’s College. I am told that Gerry Brownlee was there also in the fourth form but in his case it was for the third time. The member Nick Smith referred to Spring Creek Mine. Spring Creek Mine was a joint venture that was set up between Solid Energy and—it was a subsidiary company that was set up to be a joint venture in order to sell a pile of coal to a guaranteed buyer a guaranteed offshore buyer and to keep a pile of jobs that would not have been there if it was not for the setting up of the joint venture. I know Nick Smith hates Kiwi workers having jobs. He prefers Aussies and the Chinese to have jobs but that was done to give some miners on the West Coast some jobs. I note that now it has been wound up by the National Government those workers today got the sack and Nick Smith is the person who is responsible for that. I say shame on Nick Smith—shame on Nick Smith for that. 
This is not the shape of the bill that I would prefer. It is not the approach I would have taken but it is great to highlight the disgraceful approach to State-owned assets that this Government has. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The members who are promoting this bill the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill across the other side of this House are economic illiterates. There are three ways of growing a business and none of those ways involves locking up 75 percent of the ownership of a company in a way that would bring this country to its knees. The bill proposes— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Put some enthusiasm into it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I do not need to shout. I am discussing ideas. The bill proposes that there should be a public referendum. Well there was a public referendum at the last election and I was in Mr Cosgrove’s seat the electorate that he was busy trying to become the member of Parliament for and I was listening to what the community was saying. It was not supportive of his ideas because he was campaigning against the National Party. He did not support asset sales. Why did he not phone his good mate Mike Moore in Washington who is New Zealand’s outstanding ambassador in Washington who was head of the World Trade Organization and who was a Minister in Labour Cabinets over a long period of time? I ask why he did not ring his mate Mike and say: “Hey Mike am I on the right track with this legislation? I’ve got a lot of time on my hands now that I’m a list MP. I’m looking for a member’s bill to write. Would this be a good one?”. If he had Mike Moore would have said: “No forget it. You’re absolutely on the wrong track.” 
Mr Cosgrove is also on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and he may remember—if his memory is going to last that long—that John Palmer chair of Air New Zealand spent about 30 minutes in our committee extolling the virtues of mixed public-private ownership and its benefit to Air New Zealand. I am not sure why Mr Cosgrove would not have heard what Mr Palmer was saying. He is a well-respected businessman in this community. He was saying: “Forget it. This is not a smart deal. You get much greater synergy much better decision-making when you bring in representatives of the private sector to run the board.” 
We stood at the last election and said we are going to be selling up to 49 percent of assets in State-owned companies. Why are we doing that? Because we do not wish to borrow more than 30 percent of gross national income as debt and we are going to invest the proceeds from the sale first of all into the community by giving it a broader capital base and share options for older folk who are retiring and want a cash flow into their retirement. We are going to use the money to benefit our young people through better education facilities. My electorate in the Wairarapa has no shortage of need in that area to bring our 100-year-old schools up to today’s technology. We are going to spend money on hospitals to again look after our older and young people in the community. 
We have passed legislation that guarantees the Government will own at least 51 percent of the energy companies and prevent any other shareholder from owning more than 10 percent. There is no need for this bill. Why would you completely clog up any ability in this community to move sensibly forward with an elected administration? Under an MMP system you have to involve a cross-party selection of other parties in this House. I think that if you go to the community and you get its backing then this particular draft of the bill is simply trying to fill up this House with absolute nonsense. It is a bill that will not pass. I do not support it because what it would lock us into is higher debt higher interest rates and lower gradings from Standard and Poor’s. I think what we need to do is to broaden the pool of investments for New Zealand savers and deepen our capital markets. I am sorry but I do not agree with this bill at all. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I am not sure whether that was a good impression of Dr Dolittle Mr Magoo or Sir Les Patterson I cannot quite work it out. [ 
Interruption 
] Yeah those members are animated now. Can I just say this to the House. Mr Hayes talked about the Government guaranteeing various things. What he failed to say and what every National member has failed to do when they got up in the House tonight was guarantee that the Government would not go beyond selling those assets that it has already put on the block. They never got up and said “We will guarantee we will not sell KiwiRail not sell New Zealand Post not sell Radio New Zealand” etc. Not one. In fact we know from the record of the House that Minister Joyce actually said there was no guarantee that the Government would not go further. That is the one thing Mr Hayes did not talk about when he talked about guarantees. 
It has been an interesting debate because this will come down—as Trevor Mallard said this State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill highlights what the Government is about. If it chooses not to support this—likewise Peter Dunne—then we know it is open slather. We know that at any given time in the future these guys— 
Nicky Wagner 
: No we don’t. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well Nicky Wagner says no it will not. But the problem Nicky Wagner has got as she joins the battle late in the piece is that none of her senior colleagues have provided any guarantee. That is the difficulty she has. Is she going to stand in the House now and provide a guarantee that the Government will not sell Kiwibank for instance? No guarantee at all. So the acid test is simply this: if those members are prepared to guarantee they will not go beyond the assets they have already taken out of the schedule and they are prepared to say they will not sell any more assets and guarantee that to the people of New Zealand then they will support the bill. If Peter Dunne is prepared to back his election promise to not sell Radio New Zealand and the rest—New Zealand Post Kiwibank KiwiRail—then he will support the bill. If those members will not then there is a gaping hole in their argument and the people of New Zealand will simply judge them accordingly. 
It is really interesting the arguments that have been put up. They are paper-thin wafer-thin arguments apart from being a bit of good old-fashioned—I do not mind it—colourful invective here and there. We all participate in that. Apparently I am responsible for all the ills of the 1980s having been a 14-year-old at St Bede’s College in the fourth form. Gerry Brownlee was hovering around. I am not sure whether he was in a capacity as a student or a teacher at that time but apparently— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hey is it true he used to coach rugby from the sideline driving his car up and down? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Look I would not want to bring that fact into the debate. But that is the sort of wafer-thin argument. But it is a simple thing ladies and gentlemen. Over that side of the House those members are going to signal to the people of New Zealand that either they guarantee not to go beyond those assets that they have put on the block or it is open slather. That is the simple mechanism that this bill—critical though they have been of it—will trigger when the vote happens. Very simple. If you are not going to do it then stand up. If those members are not going to do it they should stand up and say “We will not go beyond what we believe we have a mandate for.” because that is what of course they keep prattling on about. 
The fact is that their Ministers—Steven Joyce particularly—have stated in this House that they cannot guarantee for instance—as he referred to—the partial or whole sale of KiwiRail by this Government or by a future National Government. He was asked in this House and he provided no guarantee. In fact he confirmed what we already knew which is that he would not guarantee that. So that is the acid test for this crew over here. Despite all the hullabaloo and the sorts of soft tones of Mr Hayes attempting to be a latter-day statesman and trying to be logical—the problem Mr Hayes has got of course is that when he talks about what it will do with the money the difficulty is his Government has stuffed up the sales so badly and mismanaged them so badly that there is no guarantee at all that he will even—thank goodness—get a sale away. But as Mr Hayes pointed out he has already spent the money. He has already booked it. He has booked the dollars from the sale in his Budget before any sales have gone ahead—before any sales have gone ahead. 
Mighty River Power is on the skids in respect of the Waitangi Tribunal and probable court action. We know Solid Energy is in deep trouble now. We know with regard to the share price of Air New Zealand that it has been signalled it is not a good time to sell. Genesis Energy will suffer a similar fate and a similar set of issues to Mighty River Power and of course Meridian Energy is over a barrel at Tiwai Point by Rio Tinto its biggest client. So the Government has mismanaged it so badly and it has almost spent the dough—it has booked it—but it has not completed or even started one sale. So this where we are tonight—the acid test. The vote will go through and then the people will know. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises and Crown Entities (Protecting New Zealand’s Strategic Assets) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the bill. All of us put ourselves forward in this House because of a particular passion as well as the broad political framework of our own parties. I am here because of a number of issues including a river and the river people. This bill is about that river its wildlife and the river people who have suffered from its contamination since 1955—a mere 77 years. Thus the bill’s correct title is the “Black Drain Bill” and the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand created the “black drain:. This bill is a simple amendment to section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act. It puts a 5-year time frame on that section which permits discoloration and toxic effects from discharges to waterways in exceptional circumstances. We believe the clause should exist but with a time frame. It has scarcely been used by councils and industries for more than 4 years and that is as it should be. We support that. However it is also used in one place to justify one of the longest and most extreme point sources of pollution in our entire country’s history. 
In 1954 the Parliament passed the Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Enabling Act. This Act facilitated Sir James Fletcher’s company to use the Tarawera River as the drain next to the Tasman Pulp and Paper mills at Kawerau. Overnight a sparkling body of water—a whakapapa a water resource and a fisheries—was turned black. The enabling Act was the end of farmers’ water supply on that adjacent plain. The Pakeha farmers were given an alternative water supply and the Maori farmers were not. From the outset those tangata whenua were lied to by Fletcher Challenge which promised them jobs and a clean river for ever. Neither promise was fulfilled for the blacklisted whanau who dared to stand up to Fletcher Challenge and for the river that turned black. From that day some staunch tangata whenua stood up and challenged whether they worked at the mill or not and many mill workers have stood in this struggle. That upper river which is a sparkling beautiful and dynamic river was home then and is home now to many fish to many fishers to recreation and to people who live alongside it. But the lower river was renamed that day and still is called the “black drain”. It is still recognised as being compromised for angling and swimming for food gathering and for the people’s identity. 
The enabling Act was finally repealed thanks to a campaign led by my partner environmentalist Gordon Jackman whose commitment to this issue filled a whole room of our house with written excuses for pollution that we had to address. He even went to university and did a chemistry degree entirely to take on the science of the pulp mills and to support the tangata whenua and local residents who wanted a simple thing clean water and to be able to go and catch a healthy whitebait and to have a job as well. The river discharges and the air discharges as well were then subject to years of debate and campaigning and struggle until finally it was forced to be heard under the Resource Management Act so that it could be addressed in terms of a consent. Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act was apparently written partially to keep facilitating the pollution of the Tarawera River as an “exceptional circumstance” which is the section in my bill that I want time-defined. 
 On one level this can be said to be true. It is an exceptional circumstance when both Government and regional government have abrogated their responsibilities to set a fair limit on pollution—a time limit on pollution. It is a breach of article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it is up to 150000 tonnes of pulp mill effluent per day containing resin acids which blacken the river and up to 5 tonnes of organochlorines from the bleaching of that pulp. And yes the levels of dioxins have been reduced and the river does not literally foam like it used to up to 3 feet deep but the invisible contaminants are still in that sediment 77 years later and the Bay of Plenty is also affected. The effects on trout and native fish including goldfish have been shown over years and they are still alive but those tuna and those goldfish have been shown to have livers and kidneys that are sick. Like many humans these species can live in a contaminated environment but it is not a good living. 
Tonight this House could give this bill and this river a chance. We need to hear from the councils and from industry but most of all we need to hear from the river people about the “black drain” in section 107(2)(a). More than 10 years ago we brought a photographic exhibition to Parliament to show the MPs. We had photographs of the river we had photographs of the peoples of the river and we held it down in the bottom foyer and not a single MP turned up. So here I am 10 years later bringing this picture to you today as a positive opportunity to help this river enter the modern world where cultural and environmental issues and all kinds of relationships with rivers are not trampled on as if there were no alternatives to clean it up other than to close it down. A select committee could ensure that this bill is both fair and practical. 
I want to take my opportunity to pay some respects to the brave ones to the people of NgatiTuwharetoa Ngati Awa and NgatiRangitihi who have fought so hard and held the line in the face of section 107(2)(a) without its time limit: to exceptional people like the rangatira the late Jack Fox Isobel Fox and their son Tomairangi Fox; and to the whanau from Onepu and Kawerau and the Ngati Awa people from Te Runanga o Ngati Awa who have all worked at different levels through different processes over many years. They have not asked for the mill to be closed; they have asked for the effluent to be cleaned up and dealt with appropriately. And many of us have stood with Greenpeace which brought the  
Rainbow Warrior  
at least three times into the Bay of Plenty to say that enough is enough. 
I want to pay tribute to the late Bill Marr to Tiipene Marr the man who stood on the “black drain” bridge with his taiaha day after day after day and to all the Marr whanau who have stood up for this issue and to Mr Reuben Cohen and the mill watch crew who gave most of the 1980s to this cause. You might think that is a long time ago. Well it is a long time ago and that is our disgrace. So we must stand up for the unrecognised people who are not heard in houses of power who have fought so long and hard to see this change be debated in this House today. We had a slogan then “Chlorine-Free by 1993” which is kind of hopeful. We are not there yet but my even getting to Parliament is a tribute to the fact that the river still inspires us and that we can have a chlorine-free non-polluting relationship with the environment and indeed with paper and pulp production. I also want to acknowledge the last objectors in the last court case so far: Tiipene Marr himself and also David Potter and Andre Paterson from Te Rangatiratanga o NgatiRangitihi Inc. 
In 2010 the Environment Court heard an appeal and listened to the so-called experts who said that 150000 tonnes of pulp or effluent—including organochlorines the effects of which have not been properly identified and concentrated resin acids—pouring into the river was acceptable under section 107(2). But the court also acknowledged that section 107(2) could not be relied upon for ever and let us make sure that it is not. A 25-year consent was granted in 2010 after the appeal was lost and section 107(2) was relied upon yet again. Of course employment at the mill is critical but the excuse that mills must close if required to clean up is not defensible. Pulp mills can carry out pulp and paper bleaching without polluting. They can use oxygen bleaching and they can reuse waste water. It is called closed loop it is modern pulp and paper production and it is high time the Bay of Plenty got with that. 
I worked in many councils to make sure I would not compromise the emergency overflows and still-water consents and apart from a couple of historic examples including one in Tai Rawhiti which I was proud to fight every inch of the way and which we eventually won people are no longer on this clause except for Environment Bay of Plenty in relation to the Tarawera River. This issue will be a stain on the Bay of Plenty in a very literal way and a stain on the Resource Management Act so we really need to make this change as soon as possible. Tonight I am asking the House to hear this true story and to give the lower river a chance once that current consent expires. It still gives the pulp mills 22 years to figure it out after 77 years but it also means that no one else will try to use the law for a permanent and unexceptional dirty discharge. It is time for positive change and I ask you all to send it to the select committee. Kia ora tatou katoa. Kia kaha Tarawera! 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill a bill in the name of Catherine Delahunty. Thank you Catherine for bringing it to the House and thank you for speaking so passionately about it. The purpose of this bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or coastal permit may be issued to 5 years and that is when that permit has been issued under exceptional circumstances. I have to say that on face value that seems like a sensible idea and it is attractive. 
I had an open mind when I first had a look at this bill particularly in reflection on what Catherine said about the Tarawera River. But there are actually a variety of good reasons why under section 107(2)(a) the Resource Management Act provides temporary consents and in some cases—not necessarily in this one but in some cases—the 5-year limit may actually increase the adverse environmental and economic impacts. 
We heard from Catherine about her concerns about the consent issues for the Kawerau pulp and paper Mills and about the discharge consent that has been granted and the length of time that is has been granted for which is another 22 years I think. I do respect her concerns and certainly we want to clean up our rivers. After listening to the description and hearing about the people who were so concerned about the river it sounds like we need to do something about that. In actual fact there has been some improvement and she certainly also noted that because when the consent was last renewed it reduced the discharge significantly. The amount of the discharge actually reduces during the time of that consent so it is a downward spiral. Already the mill is discharging 33 percent less now than the consent actually allows for with that continuous improvement. 
I also note that this consent and others sought under this provision have been appealed to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a pretty rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances and it has reaffirmed the conditions of the permit issued to minimise environmental effects. This indicates that in fact the process is pretty carefully considered and is used only where appropriate. It shows that the section is doing exactly what Parliament envisaged when we wrote the legislation: allowing time to find ways to clean up discharges in the cases of exceptional circumstances. 
It is now more than 20 years since the Resource Management Act was introduced so it is time to look closely at that legislation. National is committed to updating to streamlining and to simplifying the legislation and to making sure that it adequately manages contemporary issues. But I do not actually think that this bill will improve the legislation. Section 107(2)(a) which this bill seeks to amend is very rarely applied and there is no evidence except perhaps in the case of Tarawera that it has been misused. Section 107(2)(a) affects only a very small number of relevant consents because “exceptional circumstances” are indeed exceptional. Any change to the law would not affect any of the existing consents—and Catherine Delahunty has actually said that tonight—such as Kawerau and we do not expect many to be granted under this in the future either. 
So because this section of the Resource Management Act has a very limited use because when it has been used it has been validated by the Environment Court because there is very little evidence of abuse of the section and because it is used in only exceptional circumstances I am afraid National will not be supporting the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take what I think will be a short call on this piece of legislation the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have to be perfectly honest. I am not entirely convinced that the bill is needed but I do think that there is an issue here that is worthy of investigation. 
I think that the particular circumstances of the Tarawera River case provide actually a really good case study where we can have a look and see whether the provisions that are currently in the Resource Management Act for the extension of these permits out to 35 years are adequate and whether they do provide enough protection for the communities that are concerned about the health of the rivers or waterways involved. I do think this is a very good case study because Environment Bay of Plenty the regional council that issued the consent is a very very good regional council—a very good regional council with good relationships right through its community. So it is not like we would be looking at a case where there are concerns about the quality of decision making in a regional council. This is one where the council has a strong reputation. For example the company Tasman Pulp and Paper came and asked for a consent extension of 35 years. The regional council said no 25 years. It put in place a lot of other conditions including that you could not see the discharge in the river and a number of other things. So I think it is actually a really interesting case study as to whether not having any cap—or not having a 5-year cap or a 10-year cap or whatever it might be—is an issue in the law because this did turn into a very very messy and emotional issue in the Bay of Plenty. I want to recognise all the work that Catherine and her partner Gordon who was my former teacher at school did on the particular issue. 
Certainly as we know looking back through history environmental practices have varied greatly over time. We have become far more aware now about the impact of a lot of these industrial processes on our environment and that is why we have laws like the Resource Management Act in place now which were not there a long time ago. But certainly with this particular river the practices were very distressing for the community and what I think needs to be put on the record of course is that outside of the resource management process there was a memorandum of understanding that was reached with all the local iwi—not just the iwi that took the court case and failed in that court case—where they actually ended up negotiating a really good outcome but it took an awful lot of money for the iwi involved it took an awful lot of pain and anguish getting them there and it was only because of agitation. Now it is not such a big issue because Kawerau is really pleased about the jobs that were created by the extension of that mill and the boiler. As I have said they have been able to negotiate environmental agreements with Tasman Pulp and Paper where they work together on the health of the river. So there is a lot less concern about it in the community now. 
But the point to that is that it is great but it relies on both the company involved coming on board and deciding that it wants to be a partner with the local iwi and the local community and then being able to negotiate that outcome and that is not something of course that the Resource Management Act can deal with. So I think there is a question. This is a very good case study where we could look at where we have had a good outcome. It might not be in every circumstance and I think there are questions around that. I do not think that a sawmill extending or upgrading its boiler is necessarily an exceptional circumstance. I think that one of the key issues is that this was meant to be used only in really exceptional circumstances. This is the kind of thing that goes on with industry all the time. They upgrade they change and they are going to need to alter the terms of their discharge consent approval. Is that really an exceptional circumstance? And I think that is where a lot of the debate comes around. 
So like I said as far as I am aware I think this is the only case in which there has been this kind of extension so it is probably a good time to get in early before there are any others and have a look at it. Like I said I think this will be a really simple matter of getting the regional council and some of the stakeholders in to tell their story. It may be that what is needed is a very simple change. It may be that there is no change needed. But certainly having gone through and seen the anguish and the money spent on lawyers in that community I wonder whether there is not something that could be done. I certainly think that we deserve to give the iwi of the Eastern Bay of Plenty who went through this the opportunity to come and discuss what happened in this case and suggest how they might see things working differently. I do not suspect that it would take up a lot of committee time. As the member has indicated the Government is bringing along some Resource Management Act reforms anyway. Maybe it could be worked in alongside that but I do think actually the committee would benefit from having a look into this case. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution on this bill the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and to make three points. The first of those is that I am quite uncomfortable with bills in the area of resource management that specifically focus on a single resource issue. I have heard the Green Party and others in this Parliament over the years say that we should be very cautious of passing a bill to simply ride roughshod over process and approve a particular development. Equally so Parliament should be cautious of passing a law that is specifically designed to do just a particular job on a particular river. We have an Environment Court and very robust processes for that. If we look over the history of resource management in this Parliament what we have found is that piecemeal legislation—which makes a bit of law for this beach or a bit for that river or a bit for that mountain or a bit for that lake—is actually not where Parliament should be focused. It should be focused on providing really good law so that we can then consistently deal with good resource management decision-making. I think it is a deficiency in this bill and in the contribution by the member who introduced it Catherine Delahunty that it is gunning in on just the issue of the Tarawera River. 
The second point is that the bill does not achieve what the member says it will. The bill says that it is going to put a termination on the “exceptional circumstance” provision in respect of this specific application of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill and the Tarawera River. The problem is that the Environment Court has granted a 25-year consent. So even if this bill is passed it is a bit of a nonsense to say that it is going to limit the provision to 5 years when the bill is targeted to have a go only at this one river—and that consent has got 25 years to go—and there are no provisions in the bill to override that particular consent. So I think that it is a little bit of misrepresentation to say that this puts a 5-year window on it when it affects only one consent and that consent has got 25 years to run. 
The third issue on which I believe the member needs to satisfy Parliament is that she says there is strong local support for the bill. Well it is my information that the Kawerau District Council which is the locally elected community representative voice does not support it. My understanding is that neither does the Bay of Plenty Regional Council support it. Of course it could have been introduced as a local bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee does consider those when they come through. For the bill to be supported and to claim to have local support we really would want to know that the Kawerau District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council which are elected with the specific role of representing these community issues have the same view as what the member presents. Our information is that that is not correct. 
You see there is no disagreement in this Parliament that we need to raise the bar around cleaner rivers throughout New Zealand. But equally so we need to be asking the question in a very detailed way about how that impacts on employment and costs. That is we need to have a very transparent discussion around if you are going to set the bar at a particular line and a particular time frame the impact on employment and the impact on costs. 
The other part that worries me is that it is very easy to stand up in this Parliament whether it comes to issues of climate change—where the Greens have a policy of 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020 without any admission of what cost that might impose—or whether we want to have clean air or clean water everywhere at a particular time without being open and upfront with our fellow New Zealanders about what the cost and job implications are of those. In my view if we are to really have an honest discussion all those things need to be on the table. My view is that we should be looking at improving the overall framework of the Resource Management Act and not looking at legislation that picks off a single issue in a single area. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 How pleased I was that I did not have a split call having had three or four split calls at 6 o’clock in the last few months. I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. We do support this bill. We see merits in it moving through to a select committee. I think there is a serious and significant issue here which needs to be debated and needs to go before the select committee that I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
New Zealand prides itself on its image of being “100% Pure”. We have a Prime Minister who is the Minister of Tourism and he is on record as saying how important it is for New Zealand’s image that we do have the “100% Pure” image. We do pride ourselves on what we offer in this country in the South Pacific in terms of our ability to provide a very pure clean green environment in New Zealand and we trade on that logo we trade on that motto and we trade on the fact that we do have something quite special to offer to the world. However New Zealand does have the situation that we must be very mindful of that at times there can be discharges into our waterways into our coasts and into our foreshores and those discharges can be ongoing they can be serious and they can be in place for a considerable amount of time. That therefore must surely undermine the whole premise of our being “100% Pure”. 
It is for this very reason that our member Catherine Delahunty has brought this bill to the House. There have been instances and we have heard tonight in the House of the instance of the Kawerau river where discharges have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time for many many years and continuing. They basically need to be brought to a head and need to be sorted out once and for all. There will be other instances very similar to it around New Zealand that should also be addressed. Any member in this House who is not prepared to allow or any party that is not prepared to allow this bill at least to go through to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration to see what are the real issues here to see what we should be addressing in this country in terms of these discharges I think is doing a disservice to the environment of New Zealand and doing a disservice to the people of New Zealand. 
We in this Parliament are the guardians of the environment and the guardians of what is good and what is bad in New Zealand. In this respect where there are perhaps things going on within New Zealand that are not in accordance with what we would wish whether it is our wish politically party-wise or even personally we should at least have the decency to put the bill through to the select committee to allow it to be fully debated to allow the public of New Zealand to have input into it to allow the businesses of New Zealand to have input into it and to allow a full and frank debate on the issue. If we just brush it under the carpet and if we do not allow this bill to go forward and if we do not allow this bill to have some traction and at least see a reasonable amount of light then basically we are turning a blind eye to the “100% Pure” image of New Zealand and saying we have it but we really actually do not want to own up to some issues that we should be confronting. 
I have been involved in a lot of Resource Management Act issues over many many years through local government. I know what can occur what is good and what is bad in terms of the Resource Management Act and what can occur in terms of good and bad in terms of discharges. There are issues around discharges as we all know. There are situations where discharges are well treated. They are taken care of. Whatever is discharged into whichever waterway or into the sea or into our coastline through our sewerage systems through our water systems through our treatment plants—all these sorts of things which need long-term consents—is fully treated. But where there is a direct discharge into a waterway that is ongoing that is actually a pollutant that is bad for the environment and that is definitely having an adverse effect on our waterways and our coastlines we should address it. This member’s bill does that. It brings it to the attention of this House and every party and every member of this House should be supporting it in order to give the environment the benefit of the doubt in this first instance. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 As the member of Parliament for Rotorua the Kawerau river and the mills which Mrs Delahunty the mover of this bill the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill has mentioned fall in my electorate so I felt duty-bound to stand and speak on this issue. Can I start by saying to the people of Kawerau that I know how very much they rely upon the mills and what an important part of their lives they are. 
Having said that I want to make a few comments about the importance of these mills to Kawerau and to the wider Bay of Plenty and then about some of the challenges we face around the environment and why I believe that as the Hon Nick Smith said earlier the very best place to have this debate and look to make changes to legislation would be in a wider reform of the Resource Management Act as opposed to singling out in a piece of legislation like this one river one mill one area. I think there are some things we need to talk about without doubt but a wider review and reform of the Resource Management Act is the best place for that. 
The mills in Kawerau have a great deal of history. Indeed without them the town of Kawerau would not exist. It is probably fair to say that if you were to build mills of that size today you would not build them on a river the size of the one in question. Nevertheless that was done many years ago when we did not have the same focus on the environment as we importantly have today. 
The Carter Holt Harvey pulp and paper mill directly employs 210 people and approximately 140 dedicated onsite contracting staff on top of that. It produces 290000 tonnes of market kraft paper per year; 40 percent of that is exported to Asia and 30 percent to Australia and 30 percent is used domestically. Its chemical pulp exports from New Zealand in the year ending 2009 were valued at about $450 million and 39 percent of them derived from the Tasman mill—a value of about $176 million in exports for New Zealand. It also sells locally in New Zealand. Therefore the value of the work of this mill to New Zealand and the local economy is about $260 million. 
There are two mills there. There is also the NorskeSkog mill. They share the consent that Mrs Delahunty has mentioned. Collectively they directly employ 830 people and contractors and they are responsible for effectively creating an additional 3500 jobs in the wider Bay of Plenty economy. They contribute about $890 million of indirect impact $169 million to household incomes in the Bay of Plenty $1.5 billion to the New Zealand economy and $306 million to New Zealand households with 7345 fulltime-equivalent jobs. 
The challenge that we have around this resource consent which was issued a couple of years ago is that the owners of the mill needed to upgrade the mill. They needed to upgrade it for a number of reasons including the environmental impact that it was having in its current state. They needed to invest $60 million in a new boiler and other facilities there. They went for a resource consent and our regional council at the time looked at it. There was an understanding that without this investment the mill would not be able to continue to function as it was and many of those jobs would be lost. 
At the same time there was recognition of the challenges we face in the environment. I think our regional council did a very good job in balancing some of the concerns of the community about the needs of the environment against the need for investment in a plant that is of absolute importance to the Bay of Plenty and to much of my electorate. So the council was faced with a difficulty there. Indeed the resource consent was issued. It was challenged. It went to the Environment Court. I think the process did work as was intended when the law was originally written and put in place. All parties had an opportunity to have their say. Since then the companies concerned have entered into agreements contracts with local iwi to provide assistance and funding to make sure that the waterways are kept as clean as they can be. 
What I want to do in the moment I have left is just to say that one of the conditions of the consent was that the company needed to continue to reduce the pollution that might be being put into the river. Indeed if we look at 2004 compared with today what is being put into the river today is only 30 percent of what was being put in at that period of time. At the end of this consent period there will be one-eighth of the amount going into the river that was the case before. 
So I would say that the mills are good corporate citizens. They do have the environment at heart. They work closely with the community. National members will not be supporting this bill although I do think a debate is important when it comes to the wider Resource Management Act reforms. But to the people of Kawerau who I know support the mills and the work they do to the council and to others there it is very important that if this bill does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee they have the opportunity to have their say. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to begin my contribution on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by congratulating the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty on having the good luck to get her bill drawn from the ballot and also the good sense to put this before the House for a discussion. I want to say also that I am extraordinarily impressed at the large amount of public interest there appears to be from the members of the public who are in the gallery listening to this. I did not realise how many people were actually so concerned about the situation in and around Kawerau but I think it is excellent to see that. I understand that there is actually a long queue of people who are waiting to get here and I certainly hope that they are able to make it into the public gallery before Catherine Delahunty does her concluding speech. I want to say that it is great to see so much interest in Kawerau and I am sure the locals will be really really impressed. 
I have to say that I am disappointed with the local member of Parliament Todd McClay who has just resumed his seat. For him to not know or understand enough about his own electorate as to not support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee for a discussion is really surprising. I am amazed. I thought he was a member who would say that he does not think this is an issue any more as he did but if it has an impact in other areas of the country—as it clearly does in Kawerau—why not send it to a select committee and have the debate? It was obviously of much concern previously for the issue to go to an Environment Court hearing. 
I listened to my colleague Moana Mackey in her contribution prior to the dinner adjournment. I just want to say what good news it was to hear a member of Parliament praising their democratically elected regional council and saying how committed Environment Bay of Plenty is to the partnership that it has with local communities including iwi and to the standards—not just required but standards that it thinks are better than required—for environmental protection in its area. Actually more than anything what a delight it was to hear about a fully elected democratic regional council. Could we please have one in Canterbury? I do not think it is a big ask. We have not had one for a couple of years. Dr Nick Smith I am sure recalls taking away our democratic right— 
Moana Mackey 
: They’re very good. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Moana Mackey tells me it is very good. We would like a fully elected democratic council in the same way as the entire rest of the country. We in Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for people. I know we have not been able to do it for a little while but we think it is within our area of competence. I am sure that even the National members of Parliament for Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for our regional council. 
But back to the specifics of the bill. It is of course of concern when an issue as serious as this has gone through the Environment Court process. It is a big process and it is an expensive process and not one that any organisation will take up lightly. The fact that this issue appears to have been resolved in that specific place from what we have heard from other contributions—or at least attempts have been made—through the goodwill of the regional council the company concerned and the local iwi through their memorandum of understanding is good news. But that might not always be the case so the debate that we should sensibly have at the select committee is specifically around the duration of the discharge and the coastal permits. I think it would be a very worthwhile debate to have. 
I just want to make just a few concluding remarks towards the criticism that Todd McClay directed at Catherine Delahunty for what he described as the specificity—the narrowness—of this bill. In 2014—not very long—when Mr McClay is a member of the loyal Opposition of this Parliament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If he’s high enough on the list. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —if he is high enough on the list—and brings a specific and narrow member’s bill to this House I give him my commitment that I will not vote against it on the basis of it being too specific and too narrow but only on the basis of it being stupid or something I fundamentally disagree with. When you are in Opposition you do not have the resources of a Government department or agency and you do not have the Law Commission to do the preparation of a significant report. You do not have those resources so often members’ bills are—because of the resources available to Opposition members—quite narrow and quite specific. So I give the member that assurance and I look forward to progressing this discussion at the select committee. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a short call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. It could be called the “Tarawera Black Drain Bill” because this bill would limit to 5 years the duration of a coastal permit or a discharge permit that was issued under the “exceptional circumstances” section in the Resource Management Act. Section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act is the section that allows the discharge even if it impacts on fish and other aquatic life and even if it causes a conspicuous change in the colour of the river.  
At present in the Act there is no limit to how long the exceptional circumstances that might justify a regional council allowing a discharge could last for nor is there any definition in the Act of “exceptional circumstances”. So the bill would improve the Resource Management Act by making it more precise. It is not picking off a single issue as Dr Nick Smith claimed. It would apply to all polluters who sought to use this provision. It is not addressing just one river the Tarawera one place or one mill but it would certainly constrain the ability of Tasman Pulp and Paper mills to use this “exceptional circumstances” section to continue to grossly pollute the Tarawera River. 
The bill is needed because in 2009 Bay of Plenty Regional Council commissioners granted consent to Carter Holt Harvey and NorskeSkog to continue to discharge effluent from the mills into the river for another 25 years and they granted that permit renewal because of exceptional circumstances. Where the Tarawera River flows out of Lake Tarawera it is a beautiful river. The water is clear enough to see the stones to see the weed and to see the occasional trout. It is a beautiful river to walk beside to see the Tarawera Falls but lower down near the sea the river changes and that is because of the burden of pollution that has been going into the river for 70 years—70 years—from the pulp and paper mills in Kawerau. 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright identified the Tarawera River in its lower reaches as the second most polluted river in Aotearoa. I congratulate Catherine Delahunty on bringing this bill to the House. I congratulate her and the Bay of Plenty iwi Ngati Awa NgatiRangitihi and NgatiTuwharetoa on all of their mahi over many decades to respect the mauri of this river and to restore it to health so that it is a river that provides them with mana and a river that can provide them with kai. We have a long way to go but this bill is a step along that path. 
One might expect a council to use the “exceptional circumstances” section to justify a stormwater overflow in an extreme weather event or a sewage treatment plant that malfunctions but it should not be used to justify ongoing discharges over decades. The Tasman Pulp and Paper mills need to invest more in clean technology to clean up their discharges. This bill by limiting that “exceptional circumstances” provision to 5 years would provide the encouragement for them to do that when the next consent is applied for. I commend this bill to the House because it is about having clean technology to provide jobs not abusing the environment to provide jobs. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I cannot support the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill a bill that seeks to fix a river. I cannot support a bill that seeks to fix a river because the fabric of the Resource Management Act is designed to set environmental standards for water quality throughout New Zealand. 
I also want to pick up on the points that the local member Todd McClay made with regards to the Kawerau River and the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I think of the industry in my own small home town—even smaller than the one Todd was referring to—and Summit Wool Spinners. It is also a company that employs several hundred of the people of the town across many generations actually. There are up to three generations working in this company in my town in much the same way as people are working in Kawerau at the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. The fabric of the town would be torn apart if the mill in my town and if the mill in Kawerau were forced to close. So it is important to the river—yes of course it is—but it is also important to the local community. We should not ever forget that people are very important as is the health of the river. 
I also want to note tonight a few facts. I know that the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. has got a good relationship with local iwi. In fact it is investing and in the last couple of years has developed very strong collaborative relationships with the three iwi and is concerned with further cleaning up and clarifying the river. The company Tasman Pulp and Paper has signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi that commits $100000 a year to river projects. To me that says that that company is one that understands the impact of its activities on the river and one that is actively together with the local community and together with the local iwi committing $100000 a year to river projects. I think that speaks volumes about the company’s recognition of the fact that yes it has discharges into the Tarawera River that are causing concerns and certainly do not meet environmental standards but it is prepared to work with the local community. It is prepared to invest money in improving its water quality and improving the rate of its discharges. 
I also note that the mill is continuously working to reduce the discharge. The mill is currently discharging an average of 20 tonnes a day and that is 33 percent below the allowable limit now. Towards the end of the period of consent which was granted 3 years ago and which runs for the next 22 years I understand that the discharges at that point will be something like 80 percent below what has been consented for the period of consent. You are absolutely right: water quality is important. The mill responsible for these discharges has taken that message on board and it is doing something together with the local iwi and with the local community to reduce those discharges. It understands that it has responsibilities to the environment. 
My last point that I would like to make is that given that the consent which was granted 3 years ago runs for another 22 years any impact from this bill will not have any impact on the specific issue to which this bill refers. I cannot support this bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to begin by congratulating the sponsor of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill my friend Catherine Delahunty on putting this measure forward and also note the remarkable luck that she has had with members’ bills. This is for those who have not been keeping count I think her fourth bill to be drawn from the ballot. Members will know that that is indeed a very lucky record. 
Tonight is a members’ night and it is being used in the way that the Standing Orders intend that it should be used. Catherine Delahunty has put forward a bill that reflects one of her fundamental beliefs—a commitment to a clean environment. It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make this short contribution to support what she is doing. It will be an absolute pleasure for me to be able to do the same thing in a few moments for my friend and colleague Louisa Wall. 
This bill would amend the Resource Management Act to limit the maximum period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years. At the moment there is absolutely no limit on the amount of time for which this sort of permit may be issued under section 107(2)(a) of the principal Act. There is only a requirement that there be exceptional circumstances for the issue of such a permit. 
My colleagues on this side of the House want to ensure that our coastlines and rivers are protected from pollution and we support the idea of having a conversation about whether this section is appropriate for New Zealand and the regulation of its environment going forward. For those reasons my colleagues and I are very proud to say that we will be voting to send this bill forward to the Local Government and Environment Committee and support its reading for a first time. I hope that enough other members of the House will join my colleagues and me in doing that. With those words I want to conclude my contribution and I look forward along with others present tonight to the rest of the business of the House. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
Tena koutou katoa. It is great to see the public interest in this moment in history! I am very excited about both my bill the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and the subsequent one the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill because they are both about passionately held important issues of justice. 
To return to my bill I would like to thank the speakers from New Zealand First and the Labour Party for their very helpful and supportive comments as well as my own colleague from the Greens. I have heard some interesting attempts to justify not sending the bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee. These include that this bill is for only one river. It is at the moment but in the past section 107(2)(a) of the principal Act has also been used in the notorious Paokahu - Tai Rawhiti sewage battle which some in this House are well aware of and the Rotokawa Joint Venture and Mighty River Power battle versus Taupo District Council. 
What is more this kind of open-ended section could be used again. I have already seen it used twice and I have also seen that the lack of a time limit means that regional councils and companies can rely on it as Environment Bay of Plenty and the pulp mills in fact do. They are hoping that they can keep relying on section 107(2)(a) without a time limit. Successive mill owners have told communities that the effluent in the river is so improved that we should not have to worry; they have paid their experts to say this. 
When the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research appeared in front of one of the hearings that I was at and told the court that putting 150000 tonnes of pulp mill effluence into a river every day was enhancing its life-supporting capacity I thought I had heard it all. But what I had heard was that money talks in the Environment Court and the poor cannot be heard. 
The scientific knowledge about the toxic effects of chlorine bleaching has been considered by the courts according to last century’s level of understanding about the effect of chemicals. The persistent organic pollutants and emerging chemicals of concern which are associated with chlorine bleaching are much more toxic than we suspected and in smaller amounts. We need to catch up with the modern and precautionary understanding of chemicals rather than license continued pollution. We can have pulp and paper; we can modernise our industry and keep our jobs. 
When Dr Russel Norman and others went down the Tarawera River in an inflatable last year they arrived at the river mouth with bad headaches because the “black drain” as it is unfortunately known is dirty and it smells bad. I urge you to drive through Matata and have a look at it. If you would like to look at it you will see Coca-Cola - black water pumping into the Bay of Plenty after 77 years of pollution. 
Another argument was that the local council and regional council do not like my bill therefore it is not local. It may be news to some in this House but local and regional councils are not the only voices we need to listen to. I know at least one regional councillor in the Bay of Plenty Tiipene Marr who has fought all his life for the clean-up of the river even though he is outvoted and out-lawyered. 
We need to hear from people who gave up submitting and protesting but have not stopped grieving for the 77 years of pollution. And all the memorandums of understanding the experts and the planting of nice little trees along the polluted river in the world by the pulp mills does not change the fact that the river is still a drain and the river is black. If companies like NorskeSkog and Carter Holt Harvey want to they can afford the experts and pay them well and say that there are no cultural social or environmental issues that are ongoing. But I swear to this House that there are people—some living and some who have passed on—who although they cannot win in court have a legitimate and profound view that we need to hear about section 107(2)(a) and also about the sludge pond and the contamination hidden behind the barbed wire fence around the wahi tapu at Kawerau. Just as the gallery tonight may be full of people who are here for justice this is an injustice they may never have heard of and it is time that they did know about what is going on behind the pulp mills at Kawerau. It is time that you heard this story.  
The workers at the mill and every activist campaigner over 77 years have acknowledged the need for jobs and for food on the table in the Bay of Plenty. But do we really believe that after 77 years of pollution we cannot incentivise these companies to change? We can protect this and other waterways by giving them a clear message about the law. Exceptional means exceptional and a river is not a drain. I would like to thank all of you who have supported this bill and I say once again kia kaha te Tarawera Awa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I move  
That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.  
I am proud to be the sponsor of this bill before the House the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill which seeks to define marriage as between two people regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. It is generally known as the bill that will enable marriage equality between consenting adults underpinned by principles of love fairness and equality of opportunity for all New Zealand citizens. The bill has attracted passionate reactions from a number of quarters and the result of that passion has seen statements that reflect a diversity of opinions across our society. This ability to engage and to make a statement and to have a say about this issue is fundamental. I want to highlight that this is an important aspect of a modern democratic society.  
The starting point for this bill rests with our role on the international stage. In 1944 when the founding document of the United Nations the United Nations Charter was being developed New Zealand pushed for a stronger focus on human rights and in 1948 we again played an important and effective role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We saw the need for such a declaration and participated in its instigation and development. This is not surprising given that we led the world in enabling women to have the right to vote. We did that in 1893 and it took the United States another 27 years to reach that same point.  
That sexual orientation is a ground of unlawful discrimination is not a matter of dispute. In 1993 we as a country amended the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 to outlaw discrimination on a wider variety of grounds including sexual orientation. This is what we must always remember when we discuss this issue. This issue will make all citizens and people of New Zealand equal under the law given that currently same-gender couples cannot obtain a marriage licence from the State.  
What my bill does not do is require any person or Church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a Church has. Section 29 of the Marriage Act remains in place and makes it clear that once a marriage licence is obtained by a couple it does not oblige a minister or celebrant to marry that couple. That is the situation now and nothing will change. Because we have freedom of religion in New Zealand no religious body is bound to marry a couple if that marriage is at odds with its religious belief. For Churches and religious institutions such discrimination would be justified under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 based on the right to freedom of religion—specifically the manifestation of religion and belief—under section 15 of that Act.  
It is the State’s role to uphold our laws and our international obligations and to ensure that everyone has equality under the law. The Church can discriminate but the State should not and cannot. We as parliamentarians belong to the only institution in New Zealand—our Parliament—that makes our laws and upholds not only these laws but our international obligations as well. It is not the State’s role to sanction heterosexuality or homosexuality. We recognised that as a country in 1986 when we decriminalised homosexual acts. Nor is it the State’s role to judge the marriages of its citizens. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation in accordance with the marriage laws of the State.  
Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has over that time changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero. The Catholic Church initially saw the institution of marriage as tainted and undesirable and advocated chastity and celibacy. Once the Church adopted and adapted marriage it was for life. It could not be dissolved. A married woman assumed the identity of her husband and he received all her property. By marriage the legal doctrine of coverture meant a woman had no legal status. She could not own property enter into contracts earn money or obtain an education without her husband’s consent.  
The Church and State have at different times refused to marry people who have been divorced refused to marry people of different faiths and refused to marry people of different races. Those restrictions have changed because they were not fair and just.  
Women were not able to be guardians of their children upon a divorce or separation. A law was needed to change that. For women to own property required law changes as recently as 1884. A woman was able to obtain a divorce from her husband only if there was another cause alongside adultery such as extreme cruelty desertion or incest. A man however could obtain a divorce immediately on the basis of his wife’s adultery.  
These are all part of the historical matrix that is marriage. Thankfully the need to change some of the laws has been recognised and implemented. With women obtaining the right to vote and finally having legal status the greatest transformation of marriage began. There are a number of shocking historical facts that surround this subject and we baulk at how in a civilised society they could happen. 
 Today is the time to open the institution of marriage to all people who are eligible. There is no reasonable ground on which the State should deny any citizen the right to enter the institution of marriage if he or she chooses. That is not the process of inclusion. 
To any person concerned about their own beliefs and how they wish to celebrate marriage it is important to always remember that this bill allows a couple to only obtain a marriage licence. It does not mean that a minister or celebrant must marry the couple. Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 says that and this will not change. 
Some people have suggested that the Church cannot share its view about marriage because of section 56 of the Marriage Act. Section 56 says that a person cannot state that another person’s marriage is not legal. That does not concern the general view of marriage but is directed to an individual and the reality is that once sanctioned by law the marriage is legal and no Church person should be stating otherwise. 
I want to highlight two specific consequences if my bill becomes law. Under section 3 of our current Adoption Act a joint application to adopt can be made by only spouses or the birth parent and his or her spouse. A spouse is a marital partner so if you are married you are spouses. Therefore under the current wording of the Adoption Act same-sex marital partners as spouses would be able to make a joint application to adopt. There are shortcomings in our current Adoption Act and the Care of Children Law Reform Bill which is also in the ballot would be unaffected by this bill. 
Also an obvious consequential amendment is to section 30(2) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995. This provision limits a trans person who is married and who gets a Family Court declaration under section 28 of this Act to change their sex details from having those details amended on a birth certificate. This section should be deleted. A marriage stood strong through the significant change of one partner transitioning from one sex to another should remain recognised under New Zealand law. 
How any person’s marriage is performed has never been the State’s business. Whether it be cultural religious or civil it is the decision for the couple and their whanau. What this bill will do is enable that decision to be made and for all people to have the same choices about how they make a commitment to one another. Where it requires a licence the State should not exclude any citizen who is otherwise eligible. To exclude two people from obtaining a marriage licence based on their sexual orientation and gender identity is not tolerable. We have an opportunity as a Parliament to rectify this discriminatory unequal and unfair application of the law. Kia ora. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I put the question and call the next speaker I must remind our guests in the gallery that they cannot take part in any proceedings in the House much as they may wish to. Visitors in the gallery cannot applaud or express any view on the debate in the House. I apologise for that but those are the rules of the House. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. I want to congratulate Louisa Wall on bringing this bill to the House. Today is an important day for New Zealand because I hope that we are on the cusp of passing a piece of legislation that will strengthen the rights and freedoms of a significant group of New Zealanders. 
In this House there is huge diversity. We were born in places across New Zealand—from Takapuna to Ruatoria—and in villages in Samoa. We have MPs of different ethnicities—Samoan Korean Chinese Pakeha and many more. We have MPs of different faiths—Muslim to Sikh to Christian. We are a House of Representatives. We reflect the diversity of New Zealand and our families are all so different. What binds us together is a shared sense of justice fairness and a heartfelt belief in this amazing democratic hard-working country. My grandfather fought for our freedom as did many members’ relatives in this House. Ronald Reagan once said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for protected and handed on for them to do the same”. 
New Zealand has a proud history of leading in issues of equality. This bill in my view is about justice and the basic right of every New Zealander to have equality before the law. Civil union gave us a step forward in that it conferred many rights to New Zealanders who had been deprived of them in the past. However it did not guarantee every New Zealander the ability to marry the person they love. It did not guarantee an equality of status relationship. I go further and say that this bill not only confers on every New Zealander an equality before the law in terms of their relationship but gives a dignity and an acceptance to a group of New Zealanders who not long ago were criminalised for the people they love. 
I stand before you today as a member of the National Party. As the National Party we have a strong history of bringing together different groups of New Zealanders. Recently the Prime Minister commented on the founders of the National Party. He said: “… they thought that the individual freedom promoted by National involved many diverse groups with conflicting interests. Tolerance was the key to working through those conflicts—giving everyone a say but ensuring the Party ultimately focused on the good of the country as a whole.” That is why I accept that being a champion of freedom is also about accepting that others may hold strong opposing views and that they have the right to voice and exercise those views in this House. We may vote differently on this side of the House on conscience issues but we are bound by equality of opportunity. We are a party that has always treasured freedom of choice. We are a party that is often regarded as the unwelcome hand of the nanny State reaching into the homes of many New Zealand families. 
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge some of the people and the liberal members in the past who have fought on this side of the House for freedom. Venn Young proposed the first attempt at homosexual law reform Marilyn Waring dedicated her time in Parliament and her academic career to issues of equality and the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley proposed and helped pass the human rights legislation. I also stand before you today as the member for Auckland Central. I represent the wonderful suburbs of Grey Lynn Ponsonby and Rocky Bay and a huge lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community. But at a personal level regardless of the fact that I am a member of the National Party and the member for Auckland Central I support this bill because I actually believe it is the right thing to do. 
I know the arguments in opposition. I do not believe that tradition is a good reason to block same-sex couples from the ability to marry. If we had accepted in this House the arguments of tradition then women would have never got the vote and women would not be sitting in this Chamber this evening. In terms of religion there will be ministers and people of different faiths supporting the bill and some who oppose it. Some have raised issues of religious freedom and I believe that those issues can be worked through at the select committee. I know how important this bill is for many young New Zealanders. Young New Zealanders overwhelmingly support this bill. When I look to the future of this country and the many people who will come after us in this House I believe that if this legislation does not pass today it will eventually pass. 
I meet young New Zealanders every day who are very diverse. They are more diverse than the previous generation. They have a high level of tolerance and respect for people’s differences. They do not shun those differences; in fact they celebrate them. I stand here as a New Zealander with eight siblings. I have had lots of parents; several step-parents. I have a mother who has a boyfriend of 25 years and I have a father who has had several marriages. Dad I think you have used my quota! The point that I make is that New Zealand family structures are very diverse and a major reason that I support this bill is that I want every New Zealander to have—and I cannot deny any New Zealander—the ability to marry the person they love. 
I stand here not just as a New Zealander who believes in equality of the law but also as someone who has seen people prejudiced and teased in the broad light of day in this country. I have seen the subtle prejudice: the people who say that their partners are not invited to work functions the people who feel uncomfortable holding hands walking down the street and the people who may not be invited to the family Christmas. I see it through my electorate office. I see it in the street. The prevention of prejudice is not just the role of parliamentarians in this House. Our country would be a lot stronger if we all practised the values of greater tolerance respect understanding and compassion for fellow New Zealanders. I have met through my office people who are scared to come out to their friends their families their colleagues and their community. In fact the saddest result of prejudice that I have seen has been—and is reflected in—the high number of youth lesbian gay bisexual and transgender suicides. Some of these people have taken their lives because they cannot see themselves as being accepted. They cannot see themselves being happy. 
This Parliament has an opportunity through legislation to help change that. I will vote for marriage equality so that every New Zealander can marry the person who they want to love. This bill enshrines a principle that society supports loving and committed relationships between two people. In all of the over 10000 constituency queries that I have had I have never had anyone who has said that they want to be married to more than one person. As a legislator I support New Zealand having laws that recognise the value of two people making a commitment to each other in law. My idea of strong family policies is initiatives that support the well-being of children and education and health and that enable two committed people to be in a relationship and have that recognised in law. That is why I believe that the institution of marriage can actually be strengthened by enabling more people to marry. 
I want to acknowledge some people who have been on this road and have fought for freedom within our party. I want to acknowledge Sean Topham Shaun Wallis and Megan Campbell. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare. Kia ora Tau. I am pleased to support this marriage equality bill in the House because I believe that this bill is fundamentally about justice freedom and equality of opportunity. It is actually a reason why I am a member of the National Party. Our country in my view will be a much better place for enabling every New Zealander to walk with a little more freedom this evening. I commend this bill to the House. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I stand here as an elected representative in this House elected by the people of Mangere. It is an electorate that is close to my heart. Its people put me here by giving me their confidence that I would fairly and fully represent them. As the Mangere member of Parliament I am privileged with the stewardship that I have been given by the community and their key priorities determine the things that I advocate for and stand on. They expect me to represent their voice without fear and even at the risk of standing alone or being called names that hurt and upset families watching on. With that in mind I appreciate that I represent a different point of view one that is perhaps contrary to the majority view of this House. So to my colleagues whose views may differ from those that I represent I stand in opposition to this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill with the total commitment to defend your right to disagree with me. 
As a member of the Labour Party I say that we are a broad and diverse party of people with different points of view on almost every issue and on this particular issue it is Labour Party policy that this matter be voted on as a matter of conscience. I therefore claim that right to vote on this issue in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience and allow all MPs the same privilege. 
This is a matter that is very sensitive for many in my constituency. Within the Pacific and faith communities even within my own family within the fa‘afafine fraternity and even within the Pacific same-sex community it is a difficult issue and the views are very divided. Many in the community want Parliament to focus on the weightier matters of putting food on the table and paying the bills and not on matters that are considered private personal and religious in nature. 
In the Samoan community many recognise Samoan same-sex relationships and fa‘afafine to the extent that they are given very high-ranking titles but everyone conducts their affairs within the boundaries of culture and religion. I understand the desire of the gay community who want to have same-sex marriage but many who oppose this bill believe that the civil union and the statutory relationship laws already provide these legal rights to same-sex couples. Many believe that that legislation ought to be strengthened rather than changing marriage to incorporate same-sex marriage. 
If Parliament is to change this long-held standard of marriage between a man and a woman by passing this bill we not only change the definition of marriage we change its meaning and the fundamental basis of marriage. This change will have enduring ramifications for future generations. We do not know what those ramifications are but there is concern within my community. It is not a small change. It is a significant move. All I would say to members of Parliament and to the wider community as we have conversations about this bill and its ramifications is that I would implore everyone on both sides of the argument to keep the conversation safe respectful and dignified. Peace to you all. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I am proud to stand tonight to congratulate my friend and colleague Louisa Wall and to say that all Green Party MPs will be voting for this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. The New Zealand adolescent health research group has shown that teenagers who are same-sex attracted have disproportionately high rates of alcohol and other drug-abuse problems depression other mental health problems self-harm unsafe sexual behaviour including HIV risk and suicide attempts. In 2007 20 percent of these young people had attempted suicide in the past year—that is five times the rate of their heterosexual peers. All of these issues are strongly associated with psychosocial risk factors like low self-esteem and feelings of isolation and worthlessness. Research is unequivocal that these in turn are very strongly associated with the experience of discrimination or alternatively the experience of hiding one’s sexual orientation to avoid discrimination. 
When I worked at the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in the early 1990s we produced a poster that said simply: “HIV attacks the body. Prejudice attacks the spirit … Both can kill.” The effects of this corrosive social environment on the individual also include anti-gay bullying harassment and violence. If we want to do something about the terrible burden of misery illness and death being faced by young lesbian gay and transgendered people then we have to do something about prejudice and discrimination. For me that is why marriage equality is so important. The message that the State currently sends through this discriminatory law undermines these young people and fuels and gives heart to prejudice. That is why it must change. 
 A law that treats all couples equally does the reverse. It undermines prejudice it empowers the marginalised and it creates a healthier and happier society. That is why even if civil unions carried exactly the same rights and responsibilities they would still not be enough. All of the time that heterosexual couples have access to the status of marriage and we do not a message is sent that we are less than normal. If anyone disputes that imagine if the situation were reversed. How would heterosexual people feel if they could not marry? 
My partner and I have been together for 28 years this month. My guess is that that is longer than most heterosexual marriages. At the beginning we could have been fired from our jobs kicked out of our home denied goods and services and arrested and imprisoned for being who we are and expressing our love. To allow us the right to marry would right an injustice bring great benefit not only to us but to all of those marginalised young people and harm absolutely nobody. In the words of a former and great member of this House Brian Donnelly I used to often tell my students: “You don’t make your own candle shine more brightly by blowing out somebody else’s.” The converse of that adage is: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I should light somebody else’s.” He asked this question: “How will my own marriage be diminished by the passage of this legislation?”. He was talking about civil unions. The answer and I am convinced it is the correct answer is that it will not make one iota of difference. If that is the case what is so dreadfully wrong in allowing other New Zealanders of a different disposition to make a long-term public commitment to someone they love? 
I have friends right across this House and I want to particularly acknowledge those who have changed their minds to support this bill and also those who will oppose it tonight but have genuinely open minds to the possibility of change. But I say to others that your vote on this bill will stand against your name for ever. It is up to you on which side of history you will be remembered. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand has a proud democratic tradition. The principles of democracy are deeply ingrained in our political culture. We are one of only nine countries worldwide that can claim an unbroken line of democracy—that is holding elections every 3 years since 1854. The concept that every adult is entitled to an equal say is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation and yet there is still an assumption in this House that members know better than the public when it comes to issues of morality. The conscience vote exists because it is believed that MPs possess some sort of unique ethical view or intellectual capacity that entitles them to a greater say than the ordinary voter. That is an archaic belief that has no place in a modern democracy or 21st century New Zealand. This type of conscience vote is a relic of a bygone age. It is inherently anti-democratic and it is time MPs on both sides of the House consigned it to the dustbin of history. There is no reason why the public should be denied the opportunity to decide the outcome of this debate. 
The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill will change institutional marriage as we know it. This matter is by definition one of public morality and if New Zealand is to have a public morality it must be decided by the public the voters of New Zealand. We proposed an amendment to Ms Wall’s bill that would require a binding referendum to be held upon the bill’s passage which referendum depending on the outcome would be a catalyst as to whether the bill becomes law or otherwise. That proposal was rejected on the grounds that according to some media-driven polls 60 percent of New Zealanders support same-sex marriage. That may or may not be the case but the only way to test and determine that is by way of referendum. Such a major legislative change should be based on the collective will of the people not 121 temporarily empowered members of Parliament. New Zealanders should make these decisions collectively as a nation. 
There are those here in this institution and outside who would plead “But MPs are elected to make these tough decisions.” If that is true which party campaigned on this issue? Where was this issue in the lead-up to the 2011 election? Where is the transparency of campaign commitments that would lead some MPs to believe and conclude that they were elected on this issue? The fact is that they were not for at no time did they ever campaign on it. This Parliament is now wrestling with alcohol legislation which members themselves decided upon and created an unholy mess. This is a Parliament that decided to legalise prostitution without real safeguards and now all over New Zealand communities are alarmed at what is happening in hitherto safe business and community areas. What could possibly be wrong or unprincipled or unethical or immoral in letting the people decide a moral issue for themselves? What unique insights understanding or greater level of perception do parliamentarians exclusively have that are not shared by the New Zealand people? 
This party began 9 years ago firmly believing in the far greater use of referendum mandate. We have never changed our view on that even to the extent that we put a major macroeconomic issue like compulsory savings to the people of this country in a referendum in 1997. We could have just taken the arrogant view then that we should just ram it through Parliament. But we did not. And although the public voted in support of a view different from ours we accepted the public’s right to have their say. Since that time we have seen all manner of changes such as the abolition of the Privy Council changes to the New Zealand Honours system and the abandonment of Queen’s Counsel all rammed through this Parliament with the last two being overturned by a later Government. It begs the question: is this parliamentary superiority a transient chimeric thing? Not far from New Zealand is Fiji where the military has seized Government and constantly argues that it is backed by the people. Many of us have responded rightly I say that if that is so why not hold an election and prove it and thereby remove all doubt? Likewise tonight we say: let us ask the people and obtain a proper durable mandate. 
You know it is truly ironic to see so many people swearing daily their allegiance to democracy as MPs do every day and yet when a true opportunity for real democracy expanded democracy is presented before them so many have no desire to allow it to happen. Those of us who argue for a full public referendum on this issue are satisfied to accept the public’s will. We are satisfied to take our instructions from the people. We believe— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sorry I did not hear the bell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the member a 1-minute bell. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I apologise. Could I just finish off then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the member did not hear I apologise. It was my fault. I will allow the member to finish. It was my fault. I did not ring it for long enough. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What grounds could those who think otherwise possibly have? One has to wonder what priorities some MPs have when again today hundreds of people face losing their jobs such as another tranche of goldminers on the West Coast. Any emergency debate about them? Or do we just consign hundreds of families to the scrap heap of the free market and call this a more important issue? 
Therefore the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill without a referendum is opposed by New Zealand First. We oppose this Parliament again ignoring the people’s view whatever the people’s view may be. I ask: why are so many here not prepared to trust the people on these issues? 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 When this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was drawn I indicated that I would vote against it. The reasons that I gave to the media and my constituents at that time remain important to me but the intense public interest shown in this matter has prompted me to go much further in my thinking. I approach the issue as one who respects and wishes to protect the institution of marriage in its historical and current form. I believe that a major purpose of New Zealand’s civil union legislation which was passed before I became an MP was to protect the legal rights of gay and de facto couples. In my opinion if more protection is needed—and it may be—it should be achieved by amending that legislation not the Marriage Act. I have offered to meet supporters of this bill in my electorate to discuss what could be achieved by such a compromise. 
I accept that ours is a secular society but for me and many other New Zealanders our attitude is also deeply embedded in our Christian belief in the sanctity of marriage. I chose that word deliberately not because I expect everyone else to view marriage in that way but because it is how I see it. New Zealanders have a right to understand what the values and beliefs of their MPs are especially at times such as this. One of my favourite plays is Robert Bolt’s  
A Man for All Seasons 
. Tonight for me might be best described as a Sir Thomas More moment. 
For some members of this House and for many members of the public especially those in the younger demographic this is a fairly easy question to answer. They have emailed me and written to me and posted their views on Facebook urging me to change my mind. To them it is a simple human rights issue in that we are all created equal we should be treated equally under the law and that the State has no right nor is there any public interest in denying New Zealanders the legal authority to marry on the grounds that both partners are male or both are female. For me however and for many other New Zealanders the issue is not that simple. Nor is it a question of the State denying the human rights of some citizens. I would never condone the suppression of my gay friends’ and constituents’ human rights. I do not judge them nor regard them in any way as inferior. 
Each day we commence our sittings in this House with a prayer that “we will conduct our affairs and those of this country to the glory of God’s holy name the maintenance of true religion and justice and the public welfare peace and tranquillity of New Zealand.” It has become fashionable to demean the role of churches in society but our modern nation was founded on Christian values with a rich Christian heritage dating back many centuries brought to these shores by our ancestors. That heritage underpins our democratic tradition our legal system our traditional family structures and the freedoms that we so often take for granted. We should not take those institutions lightly and in matters such as the issue we are debating tonight we should be respectful of the voices of our church leaders. Although ours is essentially a Christian heritage we are increasingly a multicultural and a multi-faith society. Although there are many differences reflected in that diversity attitudes to marriage and its special status as a relationship between one man and one woman who honour and remain faithful to each other are consistent. I hope we will hear from representatives of those various faith communities during this debate. 
Yesterday 70 Christian church leaders including numerous national heads of major church denominations both Catholic and Protestant released a joint personal statement in response to this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and I believe it is important that it become part of the record of this first reading debate. “We have made this joint statement” said the Rev. Dr Richard Waugh “because members of Parliament need to be in no doubt what mainstream Christian views are on this matter. This issue is not about equality but about the nature of marriage. All human beings are equal in the sight of both God and society but not all relationships are the same. Marriage has uniquely been about the union of male and female. The State should not presume to re-engineer a basic human institution. The complementary role of male and female is basic to the very character of marriage along with having and raising children. Same-sex relationships are intrinsically different so can never be regarded as true marriage.” 
Marriage as we understand it has for many centuries been the basis of the traditional family unit. During my lifetime the family has come under increasing attack in a variety of ways and I believe our society is much poorer for that. In the joint statement from the churches the ministers urged parliamentarians “to take seriously that for a very significant proportion of the New Zealand public marriage is more than just a legal agreement or social contract but has a sacred character to it and that many people—Christian and otherwise—feel very strongly that the nature of marriage should not be interfered with.” I understand the distress of many in our community around this issue. I wish I could say more and respond more to those representations I have received but I do pray that we will make the right decision this evening. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Some senior colleagues whom I respect greatly have requested that I consider seeking a call on this contentious bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and having given the matter thought I now stand in the House to speak my truth on this matter. 
Many of you following this debate will know that I am a Presbyterian minister. I have been a part of similar debates in the Church in recent decades. But in this House I do not formally represent the Church. I represent Dunedin North and in this debate my own conscience. Across the Church as across society there are many views on the issues of sexuality and marriage. Like all MPs I have been lobbied heavily by people on both sides of the argument. I want to relate a couple of stories that have come to me through that experience. The first is of an elderly gay man a friend of mine who petitioned me not to support this legislation because in his view he fought for civil unions. He fought for equality before the law and he got it. He did not want the heterosexual baggage of property rights and other history that is associated with marriage and rightly he pointed to the Christian scriptures where he said there was no model for marriage that is consistent. What we have in the Old Testament is largely polygamy and there is an absence of advice certainly from Jesus in the New Testament on the topic of marriage. I suspect he would say and would be of the view that marriage is frequently paraded in the media by those who claim a Christian viewpoint as really a thinly veiled defence of Victorian morality. 
A second person who petitioned me against supporting this bill was a young pastor from a church in my electorate who was very genuinely concerned by some research he had read that suggested that children who grow up raised by parents who are not their biological parents are likely to be worse off and have worse life outcomes. He was very serious and genuine in his concerns. I also received many voices in favour of this legislation particularly from younger members of the gay lesbian bi and transgender community and many people in that community can simply not understand what the fuss is about. I think also of gay and lesbian couples I know who are fantastic parents of fantastic children. 
Personally I would prefer a model like the German one where civil unions are conducted by the State for all couples and marriages are carried out outside the State’s grasp for religious or other reasons. But that is not what is on offer here. I have been persuaded in this debate by two things in particular. Marriage is to most people a secular term certainly for younger folk. I know for example that in the Presbyterian Church where I was trained and have practised marriage was never regarded as a sacrament. That is why Presbyterian ministers were amongst the first in New Zealand to conduct garden weddings. 
The second thing that has persuaded me is that overseas there is still discrimination against those who cannot claim marriage who cannot tick the marriage box. The strongest support for marriage equality that I have experienced has come from the age group most likely to be engaging in marriage in the future. It is for those people who will be inheriting and carrying forward the institution of marriage that I am supporting the bill. I am mindful that many of my colleagues from across the House who would claim a strong faith background do not support this view. I am respectful of their beliefs and although I know that they have carefully and prayerfully examined their own consciences I am mindful that they may come to a different view from mine. My thoughts are with them and with people wrestling personally with the impact of this bill on their lives. Thank you. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 From the outset I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and her thoughtfulness and preparedness to speak with me at very short notice both knowledgably and incredibly wisely on this very important bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Secondly might I acknowledge my constituents in Hunua who have answered many surveys that I have put out and have thoughtfully and with great effort and passion sent me many emails and letters regarding this bill. I have thought long and hard about it and despite the  
New Zealand Herald  
depicting me this morning as voting against it and many attempts I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual argument against it. Consequently I will be voting for the bill. 
As was also mentioned by the  
New Zealand Herald  
a few weeks ago within a few hours of this bill being drawn from the ballot I had the Christian lobby in my local electorate asking for an appointment and they certainly gave me their very clear views which I respect. But subsequent to that I have had many conversations throughout the electorate with people from many walks of life. I very much respect that Louisa Wall sees the major issue is about ensuring that all New Zealanders have equal rights regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We have a system of separation of Church and State and this bill clearly relates only to civil law and preserves the right of churches to decide whom they may marry. I very much appreciate—I very much hope that the churches appreciate—that fact. I would certainly be against the bill if that were not the case. 
My initial reticence in supporting the bill came from my concern that some of the issues around it have not been fully explored by way of national conversations that there is no strong New Zealand evidence base and that we are travelling fast to come to a result on an issue that many New Zealanders on either side feel very deeply about—issues that have profound sociological implications. I ask: should the New Zealand Parliament be in the first instance initiating expert or select committee inquiries into the new birth technologies adoption the spectrum of sexuality and gender difference children’s rights and the evidence from the New Zealand experience so far be it fairly short? 
I understand that currently a female adult in New Zealand can adopt both a boy and a girl but a male can adopt only a boy and only in exceptional circumstances a girl. With the passage of this bill that will change instantaneously and that is a big change that does need exploring. But in the end it boils down to the same premise that all New Zealanders should have the right to civil marriage irrespective of race sex or gender. 
I was deeply concerned to hear that gay adolescents have a suicide rate five to eight times that of heterosexual adolescents in a country that already has an appallingly high suicide rate. In conversations with the Hon Maryan Street and Kevin Hague they both tell me that it will make a profound difference to the marginalisation that adolescents feel. 
From a health perspective we should be doing everything possible to create an environment in New Zealand where everyone feels they are included—I accept that. I am impressed that the Anglican Church here in New Zealand is moving albeit slowly but progressively by appointing a commission of study led by Sir Anand Satyanand and Tamati Reedy. I want to see these issues widely debated and studied in a New Zealand context and I hope they will submit to the select committee. 
Finally I sincerely hope that the select committee process will be thorough and robust and will be committed to openly addressing the sorts of issues I have brought up and many more. Although I would have personally preferred a slower process regarding this legislation as I said earlier I simply cannot construct an intellectual moral health or spiritual argument against it—in fact the reverse is very much the case. I support the bill. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 In 2005 while I was campaigning for election to this Parliament many people expressed their concern and anger that the then Wairarapa member of Parliament Georgina Beyer failed to represent their views on the issue of prostitution reform. When elected I undertook to reflect the electorate’s views and I will do that on this legislation designed to promote the Labour Party’s social reform agenda. 
I trust the instincts of my constituents. They provide a perspective that is not imposed by this House nor forced. Whatever differences there may be among us as there must be nothing will shake my conviction from supporting the majority view in my electorate. My judgment on this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is in step with many constituents I have spoken to on the street in the shops in the businesses and in the bars between Waipawa and Martinborough. Like them I consider the bill to be a sideshow; there are more serious issues that this House should be focused on. My constituents do not understand why a change in civil marriage is important. They say it will impact on a few be noticed in their daily life by even fewer people and have minimal if any direct impact on most New Zealanders. 
In response to my request for constituents’ views I have received several thousand replies by way of phone calls letters and emails. Constituents who support the bill argue that discrimination of any kind has no place in New Zealand. They say we need to look no further than the laws enacted by this Parliament over many years that have broken down barriers and opened doors for all who live in this country. They say our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination and our Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation yet two men or two women are prohibited from marrying. They say that in the 21st century in New Zealand we should not be willing to accept a legal system that effectively casts one group of people into the role of second-class citizens on the grounds of their sexual orientation. 
Those in my electorate who oppose the bill do so for a range of reasons. They have widely differing political views; they have differing religious beliefs. There are both religious and non-religious views set against same-sex marriage. For Christians marriage involves vows before God and witnesses for a man and a woman to commit to one another to procreate and to raise children. For all religions marriage is not defined by love; it is defined as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. Many of my constituents believe that marriage was introduced into society through religious channels and religion shows marriage not to have anything to do with same-sex partnerships. For these people it is not possible for marriage to be redefined beyond the boundaries of a woman and a man. They worry that if marriage is redefined once it could continue to be redefined. They see this bill as legalising by stealth the adoption of children by gay parents. They fear the extension of boundaries to include relationships we do not as a society currently condone: polygamous relationships and incestuous relationships. These are very genuine concerns to many of my constituents. 
There are many arguments from the religious perspective. However increasingly marriage is not based on one religion. Some constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that the Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave. I see plenty of unions taking place in New Zealand between a man and a woman without any religious context. These are sometimes called marriages and use a celebrant rather than a priest or sometimes these couples choose to have a civil union. Some couples choose not to acknowledge their relationship in any way other than by living together. Many in my electorate consider same-sex couples to have the same means of acknowledging their relationship as heterosexual couples through civil union. Constituents then ask why same-sex couples need to reclassify this union as a marriage. A New Zealand civil union offers the same rights and benefits to parties as spouses to a marriage. The only major difference apart from labels associated is that unlike a marriage civil unions are a civil matter not conducted through a church. 
It is obvious these issues expose a much deeper question for churches and the wider community: what ought to be the involvement of the State in what are essentially religious and spiritual sacraments. Some constituents would rather that there were a complete divorce between the State’s recognition of a marriage—a civil union—and the churches’ solemnisation or blessing of matrimony as in the case of many European countries. The fact is that a civil union is the same as a marriage and a rose is a rose so the legal issue appears mere semantics. 
Each of us present today is a fleeting transient on the stage of this country’s history. We do not have the right to sweep aside the traditions that exist in our communities. They are not ours alone to deal with as we wish. This place belongs to every New Zealander. That is why I have asked my constituents how I should represent their views on this issue. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am pleased to have an opportunity to outline for the House the reasons why I will be voting in favour of this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. About 9 years ago when I decided to join a political party I considered carefully the values and beliefs that I feel strongly about. After some time I decided to join the National Party because National most closely resembles what I believe in. Tonight when I walk into the Ayes lobby to vote on this marriage amendment bill it is because I want to stay true to the core beliefs of the National Party. Three of these beliefs are equal citizenship and equal opportunity individual freedom and choice and strong families and caring communities. When I consider the reasons that I came into politics and when I consider the strong values and principles I believe in I simply cannot see a way in which I could vote against this bill. Believing in equal citizenship and equal opportunity is not a part-time belief. If we are to stand in this House and champion the rights of New Zealanders to be treated equally we must apply that principle across the board. 
As a New Zealander of a younger generation I find it hard to fathom that not long before I was born we actually had a law that said homosexuality was illegal. I also find it hard to understand why it was not until a few years ago that Parliament allowed same-sex couples to have their relationships recognised in law. And now I find myself questioning why I as a heterosexual New Zealander have the legislative right to marry when same-sex couples do not. 
When my wife and I got married 4 years ago we did so because we love each other. We did so because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives with each other. We chose to get married because we could and because that is what you do when you want to have legal recognition of your relationship with the most wonderful caring and beautiful person in your life; you get married. Most New Zealanders have the ability to get married like Lucy and I did but without this legislation passing a portion of society does not have that opportunity. 
That leads me to the question of why. Why should Parliament tell some New Zealanders that they do not have the same freedoms as others? Why should Parliament tell the nation that we believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility but only when we agree with the type of relationship the person is in? I believe strongly in individual freedom. I believe strongly in all New Zealanders being able to determine their own destiny. If two loving consenting adults want to get married I am not affected in any way. Allowing same-sex couples to marry has absolutely no impact on couples who are already married and we should not be afraid of it. 
We have all been receiving a lot of emails today. I do not agree with everything that people are saying but I do find myself agreeing with a recurring theme: marriage is the foundation for a loving family environment. If that is true if that is what we believe is a fundamental basis of marriage then that can only be an argument in favour of this bill because like it or not up and down this country children are being raised in homes by same-sex couples. If it is believed that marriage provides greater protections for those children and if it is believed that marriage gives those children a more loving and caring environment to grow up in then we should do it for those children. 
The law allowed me the good fortune to marry my wife and bring a child into a loving married relationship. I believe in individual freedom and equal opportunity. I believe that all New Zealanders should have the same freedoms and opportunities regardless of their sexual orientation. I do not feel threatened. I do not think there is anything abnormal about being gay or lesbian. What is abnormal is believing that only some people can be as happy as those of us living in a stable loving and caring marriage. I hope this Parliament can extend to all New Zealanders the opportunity to get married. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora ano. In this closing reply I would like to acknowledge that the fight for all New Zealanders to be recognised as equal citizens under the law is one that has been fought in Aotearoa for around 50 years. To that end I wish to acknowledge two women who are here tonight who were the litigants in the  
Quilter 
 case that brought this issue to the fore and recognised that the changes necessary to bring about equality were matters for Parliament. JoolsJoslin and Jenny Rowan applied for a marriage licence in 1995 almost 10 years after homosexual law reform and were denied. They and two other couples challenged that action through the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They then took the matter to the United Nations Human Rights Committee to test that denial against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Incrementally their courage in challenging the discriminatory implementation of the provisions in the Marriage Act set the platform for the consideration of this bill tonight. 
I want to acknowledge all people involved in the campaign for marriage equality. They are people from across the political spectrum representing rainbow groups queer-straight alliance groups human rights advocates and groups our religious leadership and communities and many others who are fighting for legalised love and those who have blogged those who have shared their stories in the media and those who have led meetings and discussions in our families and communities—thank you for your solidarity in advancing the rights of other New Zealanders and proud citizens of our country. I specifically want to acknowledge our Pacific and ethnic communities. I mean no disrespect to you. Your beliefs and values and those of your heritage countries of origin are valid. 
The purpose and intent of this bill is very clear. It means that the law and the social and civil institutions that that law governs apply equally to everyone. It means that a couple who so choose can apply for and receive a marriage licence from the State. What it does not do is affect a person’s own beliefs about marriage. The fact that a couple wants to make a commitment to each other by marriage is a cause for celebration and it can only benefit our society and families as a whole. Marginalising and discriminating against particular sectors does not benefit society and families. It is a simple choice. Do we support discriminatory laws or not? I know I do not and hopefully that is true of most of the members of this House. 
History tells us that the struggles of the gay community as with any minority have often been cruel. What has been heartening in this discussion has been the positive response from younger people across the board. It is a generational issue but it is also an issue about personal experience and the fact that when you have a friend or a whanau member who is gay you do not want them to suffer or have fewer rights than you. That is not fair or just. 
Equality for all New Zealand citizens under the law is not a moral issue. It is an issue of the inherent equal value and worth of every New Zealand citizen in a modern democratic society. The State currently discriminates. That is not fair or just. We should be valuing and including all members of our society. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a passport. If you are a New Zealand citizen fill in the forms correctly meet the criteria that apply to all people and pay the fee you will get one. The State does not limit a New Zealand citizen in their ability to get a driver’s licence. If you are a New Zealand citizen fill in the forms correctly meet the criteria that all people must meet and pay the fee you will get one. So why do we tolerate the State not giving New Zealand citizens a marriage licence based purely on their sexual orientation and gender identity? 
We know why many of the churches do not support this bill. It is fundamentally because their first principle is that homosexuals are sinners and homosexuality is a sin. But in New Zealand there is a clear and transparent separation of Church and State. It is about time that that separation was recognised within the context of marriage in New Zealand and in the State’s role in the Marriage Act through the issuing of a marriage licence. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 80 
Adams (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Kaye 
Sharples 
Ardern J 
Dyson 
Key (P) 
Shearer 
Auchinvole 
Faafoi 
King A 
Simpson 
Banks (P) 
Fenton 
Lees-Galloway 
Smith L (P) 
Barry 
Flavell 
Little 
Street 
Bennett P (P) 
Foss 
Logie 
Tirikatene (P) 
Blue 
Genter 
Mackey 
Tremain 
Browning 
Goff 
Mahuta 
Turei 
Brownlee 
Goldsmith 
Mallard 
Turia 
Calder 
Goodhew 
Mathers 
Twyford 
Carter 
Graham (P) 
McCully (P) 
Wagner 
Chauvel 
Groser (P) 
McKelvie 
Walker 
Clark 
Hague 
Moroney 
Wall 
Clendon 
Harawira 
Norman (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Coleman 
Henare 
Parata 
Williamson 
Collins (P) 
Hipkins 
Parker (P) 
Woods 
Cosgrove (P) 
Horomia 
Prasad 
Cunliffe 
Hughes 
Robertson G 
Curran 
Hutchison 
Roche 
Dean 
Jones (P) 
Ross 
Teller: 
Delahunty 
Joyce (P) 
Sage 
Dalziel 
Noes 40 
Ardern S 
King C (P) 
Peters 
Tolley (P) 
Bakshi 
Lee 
Prosser 
Upston 
Bennett D 
Lole-Taylor 
Robertson R 
Williams 
Borrows 
Lotu-Iiga 
Roy 
Woodhouse 
Bridges (P) 
Martin (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Yang 
English (P) 
McClay (P) 
Sabin 
Young 
Finlayson (P) 
Mitchell 
Shanks 
Guy 
Ngaro (P) 
Sio 
Hayes 
O’Connor D 
Smith N 
Heatley (P) 
O’Connor S 
Stewart 
Teller: 
Horan 
O’Rourke 
Tisch 
Macindoe 
Bill read a first time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 78 Noes 40. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
Minimum Wage Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think given that we have quite a significant presence in the gallery who are currently departing it is very difficult to hear what is going on. Perhaps we could have a brief pause in parliamentary proceedings before we begin the next bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s point is not unreasonable. There is a lot of noise as visitors leave the gallery and as members not involved in the next debate leave the Chamber. I would ask members leaving the Chamber to please do so reasonably briskly so that we can get on with members’ order of the day No. 5. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 If it becomes apparent during the debate that scales have fallen from sufficient National members’ eyes and the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill has the necessary support I will nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. I want to start by telling the story of a woman I met recently. We will call her Wendy. Wendy is up at 4 a.m. and off to her first cleaning job. She works two jobs. She is home at 6 p.m. and tuckered out. Wendy does not smoke and she does not drink. Wendy cannot afford luxuries and for her that now includes heating her house. She recently suffered a broken leg on the job and receiving 80 percent of her wage whilst off work meant she could not meet her rent. This proud woman who has successfully raised six kids mostly on her own had to rely on assistance from a family member for help. The story does not stop there. Wendy still has one kid at home—a teenager with hollow legs. Feeding her family comes first but as a diabetic her health is suffering in the long term. Her doctor tells her she should eat a more balanced diet. She knows what that is but can no longer afford the ingredients. White bread is cheaper than brown bread. Wendy is on the minimum wage and has worked all her life. Restrictions on adult and community training mean she cannot afford to retrain. She fears she will one day have to reside in a boarding house. 
A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean $60 a week for our lowest-paid workers over a 40-hour week. A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean extra earnings of $427 million a year for our lowest-paid workers. Most of that money will be spent on essentials—food clothing and health care—and will go straight back into the economy. It is well documented that those living on or below the breadline spend their money on essentials. By contrast the very top earners are more likely to spend extra earnings on overseas trips and other things that are of no direct benefit to our economy. The minimum wage has to be one that families can live on that rewards hard work and that helps stem the flow of thousands of people to Australia where wages are much higher. Statistics on departure to Australia are familiar to us. Roughly 1000 a week currently and 1030 from Dunedin alone last year left permanently to live in Australia. 
This Government has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years. Reports in recent days show that inequalities in New Zealand are the worst they have ever been. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Those in the middle are feeling the squeeze too as the median wage recently dropped 3 percent. People are feeling the pinch after the 2010 tax switch. Inequalities are growing since that tax package which increased GST and gave the biggest tax cuts to those who were already wealthy. These growing inequalities begin to be addressed by my bill. Maori Pacific people women youth and part-time workers are more likely to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. 
Even if the National Party believes that unemployed people are bad and do not want to work—a view I do not share—it should agree with conservative economists who argue that good wages are exactly the incentives required to get people into work. Minimum wage increases have lagged behind productivity increases over recent decades. For the health of our communities they need to increase in a sustainable fashion. If Government future ambitions for growth are to be realised the fruits of that growth need to be shared. My bill helps to ensure that that is the case. 
Public uncertainty about the effects of the minimum wage increase mirrors general uncertainty amongst economists and other experts. For many economists—I learnt this through my time at Treasury—a direct link between a minimum wage and employment changes is the Holy Grail and we can expect a Nobel Prize for whoever explains it properly first. Some say a high minimum wage will cost jobs. At some point that is undoubtedly true. If we increase the minimum wage to $30 an hour some employers will struggle to cope. But the relationship between minimum wage and unemployment is not clear cut. It is best illustrated with an example. Of the 9 years between 1990 and 1999 the National Government increased the minimum wage by a total of 70c in 9 years. Unemployment ranged between 6 percent and 11 percent. By contrast when Labour was last in Government the minimum wage was increased by $5 over 9 years. Unemployment plummeted to amongst the lowest levels in the OECD. 
Australia’s higher minimum wage has proven a boon for attracting ambitious young Kiwis. Its minimum wage equates to nearly NZ$20. No wonder 40 percent of a record 158000 New Zealanders who have left for Australia under the Key Government were aged between 18 and 30. Young talent knows that it will get paid better in Australia. Australia has of course benefited from a minerals boom but to attribute all its success to that would be a mistake. An aggressive savings policy means that A$1 trillion in investment capital is constantly searching for a home. Australia has also valued its labour market. People are attracted to Australia for the higher wages. The fact that their top earners pay much more tax than New Zealanders does not enter the debate. People are attracted to Australia for those higher wages. In fact top New Zealand taxpayers have one of the lowest tax wedges in the OECD—and that is those who actually pay tax. If we do not distribute the proceeds of our economy fairly we will continue to hollow out our workforce as young folk head across the Tasman. They are calling it “Generation Oz”. 
What about the effect on business? We know that a modest change like the one proposed will likely have no effect on unemployment. The Department of Labour reached the same conclusions when it studied minimum wage increases under this Government. This is perhaps a surprise to many but a sober assessment of the facts will also suggest that many small and medium sized enterprises will actually be advantaged by a minimum wage rise. That is because many small businesses already pay above the minimum wage. They know how hard it is for their employees to make ends meet on the minimum wage they value their employees and they believe in them. Often these small to medium sized enterprises struggle to compete against other larger firms that appeal to the lowest common denominator. The National Party if it opposes this bill will not be the friend of small business. 
Inequality has grown dramatically in New Zealand over the last three decades. The last Labour Government began to address this imbalance by ensuring 25 percent real growth—real growth—in the economy and made sure that it was shared more fairly. Working for Families saw over 100000 kids brought out of poverty. Income-related rents and better primary health care attacked drivers of poverty but much more needs to be done. When over half of a minimum wage earner’s income is spent putting a healthy meal on the table for family every night it is not possible to pay rent buy school uniforms meet incidental expenses and heat the house. We taxpayers effectively subsidise low wages through the health system. All of us contribute moneys that are spent treating the preventable diseases of poverty. It is not good for our social fabric to have kids with empty stomachs developing respiratory illnesses rheumatic fever and other illnesses through living in damp cold houses and it is not good for our economy either. 
Unfortunately the Government has put our country in reverse. Our economy is going backwards; only population growth props up numbers in our stagnant economy. GDP per capita has dropped; real wages are lower than when National took over. Kiwis are leaving permanently for Australia at the rate of 1000 per week. Sadly the Government’s 2010 tax package has ensured that the fruits of our economy are shared even less fairly than they were before. For the vast majority any personal benefit of the 2010 tax package was quickly swallowed up in GST increases inflation and sundry others like increased prescription charges. 
Poverty illness and underachievement will not be addressed until we ensure that the conditions are right for all Kiwis to succeed. We need to start by ensuring every New Zealander can afford food clothing and shelter for themselves and any family they support. A $15 minimum wage brings us closer to achieving this. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the chance to speak on this bill the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge Labour MP David Clark for his speech in regard to this bill. I have known this member since he joined Parliament. He is a good member of this Parliament a good representative of his area and a good Labour MP. But on this bill I am afraid that we have to agree to disagree because I think there are some fundamental economic and policy differences that you will see between the main political parties as this debate emerges. 
I think the first thing I want to do is just acknowledge many of the points that were made in that speech. I do not think anybody disagrees with the issues around opportunities for our young people especially for children growing up in environments that are difficult. We want those children to have food on the table we want them to have shoes on their feet and we want them to be able to enjoy the aspects of New Zealand life. But to do that we have to earn our way in the world. It is not a matter of our legislating in this House for what we consider to be a minimum wage in the sense of increasing it to a level that will actually achieve that purpose. The real way to achieve that purpose is by delivering a strong economy that grows wages that grows opportunities and that grows business so that people get rewards for their hard work and can deliver services to and meet the needs of their families. So we do not disagree with the ideals but we do disagree with how we will achieve that. That is one thing that I think is important. 
When we look at some of the points that were made in that speech it is important to look at what he actually talked about. David Clark talked about how people were feeling the pinch at the moment. Well there is a world recession going on. The world is in trouble financially. This is not a time when we are making hay around the world. 
Dr David Clark 
: How’s Australia? How about our trading partners? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Clark now talks about Australia. Well go have a look at its mining sector the golden part of the Australian economy; it is in trouble. Go have a look at its domestic economy which is in even bigger trouble. You hear the Opposition talk about Australia having minimum wages and saying that is what differs and why New Zealanders go there. The New Zealanders going to Australia are not going for the minimum wages. They are qualified New Zealanders who are going into higher-paid jobs in the mining sector and things like that. They are not going for the minimum wage like the Labour Party said. 
The other thing is that people are feeling the pinch because of the world recession and New Zealand has that complicated by the rebuild of Christchurch. We need to look after our economy—growing it—because that is the real answer for our people going forward. 
I look at the thing that was talked about of the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment. Mr Clark said that it was not clear-cut. So how then can the Labour Party say that if it increases the minimum wage there will be no effect on unemployment? The real risk is that there will be an effect on unemployment and the official advice that we have received is that this could lead to up to 5500 jobs being lost. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: 5500 jobs. That is 5500 families that do not have the income to provide for their children that do not have the ability to provide the food on the table and that do not have the ability to provide the shoes on those children’s feet. And that is what would come if this Labour bill went through. 
Metiria Turei 
: That is wrong! Wrong! Wrong! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This is the Green Party saying it is wrong. Well that is the Green Party which has about as much idea of economic policy as— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members on the cross benches should be aware that it is convention not to interject because it has an effect on the microphone of the member who is speaking. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Clark talked about growing inequalities and said that this bill is a way of avoiding growing inequalities. He talked about groups that were perceived as being disadvantaged in the community. And there are groups that are highly represented in those lower-income statistics. But those lower-income groups will be the exact ones to be hurt by this bill because they will not be enjoying a wage of $15 an hour as Mr Clark perceives; they will potentially be losing their jobs. That will then put them in a situation where they do not have the ability to even deliver the services to their families that they do now. So the disadvantaged whom Mr Clark talks about will actually be more disadvantaged under this bill because this bill hurts those people. It hurts those people because it puts them at greater risk. Those people are more likely to lose their jobs if the minimum wage increases. That is the reality of commerce. 
This is all about some kind of redistribution of income by the Labour Party. Mr Clark spoke many times during his speech about the need to redistribute income. Parliament should not redistribute income through the setting of costs on business. That does not redistribute income. If anything it makes it hard to operate a business. When it is hard to operate a business that means it is difficult to employ people and that means it is difficult to pay higher wages to people. Redistribution happens through our tax system; it does not happen through the way that we manage the costs of a business. If we want to go and redistribute the income of businesses by looking at their cost structures rather than their profits then that is a totally different method of accounting from the one that has been employed in the past and it has not been employed in the past because it will hurt businesses and will therefore hurt the most vulnerable people who have been talked about by the Opposition. 
This bill is not good for the people whom the Labour Party purports to represent. It is not good for the people whom it says that this bill will look after. In fact this bill hurts those very people at the bottom of the heap. It hurts those people on low incomes it hurts those people who are marginalised it hurts the vulnerable and it hurts those who are struggling to get decent wages and a decent life ahead. 
Then what do you say? What do you do? What is the answer if this bill is not the answer? And there is an answer. There is clear economic policy out there that tells you how to raise wages and therefore deliver for your communities. It is through the provision of good education it is through the provision of infrastructure it is through the provision of the good and best rules for businesses to operate it is through the provision of opportunities for business to expand and export and it is through ambition and hard work. That comes through a tax system that incentivises education hard work and ambition. Those things are the things that the National Party is promoting. 
The National Party is delivering in education. The National Party is delivering in infrastructure. The National Party is delivering a good environment for businesses to operate in. The National Party is delivering low interest rates for businesses to go and invest in capital equipment. The National Party is making this economy the best it can be in these very difficult times. The National Party is actually providing the environment to look after those most vulnerable people. That is what we are doing in Government. The Opposition will not do that. It purports to have an answer but it will do the opposite of that. It will hurt those people most at risk. That is why the National Party cannot support this bill. It is bad economics it is bad for our people and it is especially bad for those people whom this bill purports to help. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a vote on the last bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and to cast proxies on behalf of John Banks and Peter Dunne voting in favour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The decision now is Ayes 80 Noes 40. 
Minimum Wage Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in support of my colleague’s bill the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill which would take the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 1 April next year. I found the previous speaker’s speech quite interesting and typical in a way. I would like him to explain to those miners in Huntly who have lost their jobs what raising the minimum wage has got to do with them losing their jobs. It has got nothing to do with that. It has got everything to do with the fact that this Government has absolutely no idea about how to create real well-paid jobs. It is just full of slogans full of plans full of targets and we are sick of hearing them. 
Tonight we have made history in this Parliament with the first reading of my colleague Louisa Wall’s bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. That bill is about an injustice that needs to be righted. The bill will go through the select committee process and I am sure it will come back and get through its third reading in the same spirit that we saw tonight. This bill is about an injustice as well. I want to talk about some real people who are on the minimum wage and actually they are not too far away from us. They are probably up in members’ offices right now or after midnight cleaning their offices. They are cleaning out their rubbish bins cleaning the toilets wandering around after members making sure that the mess that David Bennett left behind is cleaned up so that when he gets back to work the next day his office is sparkling clean. 
We met with those cleaners just a couple of weeks ago. Those cleaners 28 of them who work in this Parliament are on the minimum wage. That is shameful. 
Andrew Little 
: Embarrassing. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is embarrassing. This House of the people is satisfied to allow the cleaners of this place to remain on the minimum wage. What is more they get only 30 hours a week so it is not even a full-time job. Most of them are working more than one job. We talked to them. Their ambitions—apart from wanting to feed their families put food on the table and those sorts of things—are not for themselves but for their children. It is for their children’s education. Jane the Prime Minister’s cleaner who gets $14 an hour because she is the supervisor and she is in her 60s now works two jobs. She is really tired. She has now brought her son in to help her because of the hours and the work she has do. She talked about the ambitions that she has for her children and grandchildren and how she wanted to be paid $15 an hour so that she could meet those ambitions and help her children at school when they have to pay for things like sports and so on. She wanted to be able to help them with that. They are not being selfish about this. These are real people who work in this place and they are not the only minimum wage people in this place. Talk to one of the catering workers some time and see what they are paid. 
In a place where all of us are very privileged and we all get paid well tonight the National Government is about to vote down a bill that would give those cleaners and those catering workers—those minimum wage workers—$60 a week. For us $60 a week is not that much; for them it is a huge amount. We have spent a lot of time this week talking about poverty and inequality and we are seeing the impact of that. We know that inequality is growing. We know that there is poverty in many of our families and that actually two out of every five families that are working are living in poverty. Their children are living in poverty. Those families are working but they are not earning enough to make ends meet. This is a simple measure. This is a simple measure that would cost almost nothing to give the cleaners in this place $15 an hour. In fact it is something like $50000 a year. That is nothing. We could do this. We could do it in the spirit in which we passed the bill earlier in the evening where we saw an injustice that needed to be righted. Yes I know that it has got to go through the processes but the spirit of this place was really memorable. Unfortunately the spirit does not seem to continue when it comes to the National Government supporting low-paid workers and the cleaners who clean their office. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 In my last speech in this House I found myself in agreement with 95 percent of the Labour Party on a Labour bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I hope our friends on the other side are not expecting too much of that from me. We are about to return to business as usual. I cannot find myself supporting this bill from the Labour Party the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill for many of the reasons that my colleague David Bennett outlined and that I would like to outline tonight as well. 
When Labour was in Government it was doing the right thing on the minimum wage. Trevor Mallard I understand it was actually ended up rejecting a $15 minimum wage. Labour’s policy along the way has always been to increase the minimum wage only at a rate to maintain its purchasing power. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Was that during the good years they rejected that? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: During the good years. Now that we are in a lot of strife we are struggling and we have had the global financial crisis— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Who was that who rejected that? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Trevor Mallard I am told. Trevor Mallard actually opposed a $15 minimum wage because Labour knew that if you were to automatically bump up the minimum wage to a higher level to $15 an hour without doing it gradually you would actually create greater unemployment. 
We hear quite often from members on the other side that they believe that unemployment is far too high and yes we would probably agree that unemployment is too high. We have got plans and we have got policies that are leading to more jobs being created but I have to say that if you are of the belief that unemployment is too high the last thing you would be doing is implementing a policy that would immediately price 5500 workers out of the job market. That is exactly what would happen. By increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour in one fell swoop 5500 people we are told would end up on the unemployment heap. I do not believe that that is appropriate and I do not believe that what New Zealanders would want to see is 5500 people being put on to the unemployment heap and being told that they are not able to work because they have been priced out of the workforce by this Parliament. 
We have got a very proud record on the minimum wage and we are happy to share it. Under National workers on the minimum wage are actually better off than they were under the last Government. If you take into account inflation the after-tax income of someone on the minimum wage is 8 percent ahead of where it was 4 years ago under Labour. This works out to be more than $1800 a year extra in the back pockets of the lowest-paid worker. [ 
Interruption 
] I can go louder. I can go louder too if you like. 
New Zealand’s minimum wage is actually near the top of the OECD relative to the average wage. If members on the other side of the House really do care about jobs then they would actually be supporting a policy that we have got coming up very soon that would actually help more people get into work. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is it? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: It is the starting out wage for young workers. We know that we have to provide opportunities for employers to take on people. The starting out wage for younger workers is in opposition to what we are talking about tonight but that would actually lead to more people working and actually more people getting into the workforce which is the most important issue. Getting people into the workforce is the most important issue. Pricing people out of the workforce is the last thing you should be doing. Members on the other side want to price people out of the workforce. We want to get more people into the workforce. 
One of the policies that we have had that enabled more people to get into the workforce was our 90-day trials. Did we get support from the other side? Did we get support from the other side? No we did not. But we do know that 13000 extra jobs were created under that policy. Here we are with a policy that we have just implemented which allowed 13000 people to get jobs and which allowed employers to take a risk on some people. Forty percent of employers told us that if it was not for the trial period they would not have hired someone. The 13000 jobs that were created there and the jobs that will be created for younger workers with the starting out wage—that is what we believe in. Our opponents on the other side want to price people out of the workforce. 
We believe in enabling people and giving people the best opportunity to get into the workforce. We believe in a sensible minimum wage policy which we have followed for the last 4 years that gradually increases the minimum wage to enable businesses to keep up and to enable us to put more money into the pockets of everyday New Zealanders but at a gradual rate and a sensible rate. I do not support this bill. It should not be supported by this Parliament. It would lead to greater unemployment. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou ki te Whare. The Green Party will be supporting this bill the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. A $15 minimum wage is actually our stated policy and our policy also includes attaching the minimum wage to the average wage so that it is 66 percent of the average wage. The first minimum wage was introduced in around about 1945 and at that time it was about 80 percent of the average wage. Currently the average wage is $27 an hour and the existing minimum wage is $13.50 which is about 40 percent of the average wage. If this bill is successful and a $15 minimum per hour rate is set that would take it up to a mere 55 percent of the average wage. 
Today in New Zealand 300000 workers earn $13.50 an hour the minimum wage. As we have heard from the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty there are 270000 children in New Zealand living in poverty and two out of five of them come from families where at least one of the parents is in work. We heard again today from the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett that the best way to raise these children out of poverty is for the parents to enter paid work and we agree. But it has to be work that is paid for at a decent rate and $13.50 is not it. 
Parents struggle to feed house clothe educate their kids and keep them healthy when they are earning $13.50 an hour. Before tax that is $540 a week and yes these families can access the in-work tax credit which is a discrimination against the non-working poor but this does not lift wages. It makes low-paid workers dependent on the State. The in-work tax credit is a subsidy to employers and it allows them to continue to pay wages that are simply too low. It is a subsidy for employers another deal for the well-off. 
We have heard that increasing the minimum wage to $15 is hard on employers that they cannot afford it. Well we heard that argument in the 1970s when equal pay was introduced and guess what—the world did not come to a halt. We heard it again when paid parental leave was introduced in the last decade and again the economy did not crash to a halt. The fact of the matter is that wages have not kept up with the cost of living and we cannot afford to keep our people poor because it becomes an increasing drain on our economy. It is uneconomic in terms of health outcomes in terms of education outcomes and in terms of crime and antisocial behaviour and we all pay for that. 
Employers should be paying a decent pay rate. Over the last decade productivity—the rate that workers are working at in New Zealand what they are producing and how much the employers are gaining from them—has increased dramatically but wages have not increased at the same level. We are working harder than ever but we are not being rewarded. We have not kept up with the cost of living. In the  
Dominion Post  
today they are predicting price increases linked to the drought in the US which has an impact on the wheat crops which means that in the coming months and years bread prices will be skyrocketing. 
This bill is very modest. The call for an increase in the minimum wage is really very timely because tomorrow the Service and Food Workers Union along with faith-based organisations and community organisations are launching the Living Wage campaign. They will be calling on employers to commit to paying workers a living wage basically. We do not know what that is but in the  
National Business Review  
last week they suggested that a living wage was something like $17.70 an hour. We know that on the minimum wage as it is at the moment workers— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)