TOC1

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that a bilateral parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Australia, led by Senator Ross Lightfoot, is present in the gallery. I also wish to inform members that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh, India, led by the Hon Mr Ishwardas Rohani, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegations be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Otago District Health Board—Auditor-General’s Procurement Guidelines

1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does the Otago District Health Board follow the Auditor-General’s guidelines on procurement with respect to all of its contracts with suppliers and providers?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I am advised that it is the practice of the Otago District Health Board to follow the contracting advice of the Auditor-General and of Treasury. I am also advised that some high-profile contracts the member may be aware of rather obviously did not meet those standards and are, therefore, the subject of an alleged fraud inquiry.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the delegated authority to approve spending under contracts of the Otago District Health Board chief information officer, and what is the threshold before cumulative approvals are referred to the chief executive officer or the board?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not, of course, know the answer to that, because I am neither a manager nor a board member of the Otago District Health Board. I am happy to advise the House, however, that delegated authorities were tightened up a couple of years ago, and that procurement policies were tightened some 3 months after the change of Government.

Barbara Stewart: Would he concede that a health system divided into 21 separate entities—or 22, counting District Health Boards New Zealand—provides a fertile ground for activities such as those uncovered in Otago, and how does he intend to improve the level of accountability of the district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is a point of view, I guess—that if we were to atomise the system more, we would get more cases of this sort, and vice versa. That did not seem, however, to work very well in the case of Enron, and I cannot imagine that 21 baby Enrons would have in any way increased the problems that that company already faces.

Hon Tony Ryall: When the Government apparently tightened procurement procedures 3 months after it came to power, did the Minister ever envisage that a mid-level district health board manager might be able to award untendered contracts that he monitored himself and for which he authorised payments of up to $5 million a year, unchecked?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government did not tighten procurement policy 3 months after the general election. As a matter of fact, the chief executive of the Otago District Health Board did, because he felt that the procurement policy was not at that point tight enough. A number of the contracts that are under inquiry pre-dated that—if that is not already clear to the member. I also point out to the member that in the course of this alleged activity, the Otago District Health Board has been subject to audit by Audit New Zealand on no less than seven occasions, that Audit New Zealand at no time found anything untoward, and that to those who know a little about the form that the alleged serious activity might have taken, it is no particular surprise that Audit New Zealand found nothing seven times. It is a matter of fact that the alleged fraudulent activity was first detected internally by staff members at the Otago District Health Board.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Minister’s expectation of what a district health board’s policy would be if it was informed that a board manager was driving to work in a late-model Lamborghini and parking it next to the board’s Corollas; what action would he expect a district health board to have taken in those circumstances?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I advised the House yesterday that I was unable to confirm there had not been any earlier questioning of the person who is now subject to serious fraud inquiries. I am not able to tell the House who asked whom what, in which year, or the employment that the gentleman was in at the time. I know a good deal more information than I am able to give the House; it is not in the national interest for me to give further information. We must let the inquiry proceed without it becoming some sort of cause célèbre in the meantime.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think it is consistent with Auditor-General guidelines on procurement that a district health board might be put into a position where it is forced to pay for a professional sailing crew to fly to Fiji to return a 50-metre luxury launch back to Dunedin, and what assurances can he give that the residents of the Otago region will not be paying for this malfeasance for years to come through lack of surgery and services?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The people of Otago have already been paying for it, because this is money that has been, in part, lost to the health system. The hope is that there will be recovery of some proportion of the $16 million, and that there may be some recovery of some further proportion through insurance. The quanta are not clear, but they will not total the $16 million that are lost. The long and short of it is that the Otago District Health Board, I think, has managed the situation commendably since the point at which an employee or two of the board finally worked out what might have been going on. I think the actions taken by the board since an alleged fraud discovery was made have been managed well indeed.

Jo Goodhew: What policy would the Minister expect a district health board to adopt if, say, it became aware that a board manager owned a Lamborghini, a Formula One racing car, a Bentley, plus 27 other cars?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The truth of the matter is that some of these cars have come to light only recently—people have been finding Rolls-Royces in garages around the country, even in recent weeks. But it is worth repeating—and I will do so—that I am not able to give the House information about what challenges were made to an alleged fraudster, by whom, in which year, or indeed the nature of the employment the alleged fraudster had at the time. Those are matters that have to be discovered and put into a forthcoming court case.

Senior Citizens—Services

2. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens: What steps is he taking to improve access to Government services and improve the quality of life for senior citizens?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens): On Saturday, 11 November I launched the much-anticipated Supergold Card, a dedicated seniors’ card that will deliver real and meaningful benefits for our citizens, and this is what it looks like—

Gerry Brownlee: Name one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will name 50.

Gerry Brownlee: Just one will do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, ask a supplementary question, and I will name them, but do not shout it out in the House, rudely, as the member is wont to do. New Zealand First made this card a central feature of the 2005 election, and with the Government’s help we are delighted that from August next year the Supergold Card will be in the pockets and the purses of seniors across the country. This card will be sent automatically to those who qualify for New Zealand superannuation, including those receiving the non-qualified spouse entitlement and the veterans pension.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What other features of the card and information were part of the launch?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The new card will have an optional photograph. In addition, a special directory of goods and services will be available from August next year—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A photo of you?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if they want to upgrade it they can have a photograph of me, or they can downgrade it with a photograph of Nick Smith. They can take their choice. But, no, it will be the cardholder’s photograph. It will be Jane Doe’s photograph. It is optional. A campaign is under way to bring on board those businesses that want to be part of this programme.

Pita Paraone: How can people find out more information about the new card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Two freephone numbers have been set up in the interim, one for the many thousands of inquiries by seniors and the other for businesses. The numbers are 0800 254 565 for seniors with inquiries, and 0508 650 000 for businesses.

Pita Paraone: Are there any particular negotiated discounts that will be part of the card?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am very glad that my colleague has asked that question, because politics is about doing things, not just talking. It is about action, not like over on that side of the House where there is plenty of pre-sales talk and no after-sales service. Given that Parliament’s most prominent superannuitant is about to retire, we are hoping to negotiate—

Hon Members: Ha, ha—yes, you!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I am a modern-day Adonis compared with him.

Madam SPEAKER: Members, please keep the interjections rare and, preferably, witty. There is to be no barracking, please. Would the Minister please continue.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am a modern-day Adonis compared with the person I am talking about. Given that Parliament’s most prominent superannuitant is about to retire, we are hoping to negotiate a special deal on, for example, fleecy pyjamas, corned beef, and frozen peas.

Schools—Quality of Education

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement: “Every student deserves the best from their time in school. We need the whole system to focus on this and making a difference for students.”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Education): Yes, the Minister does.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware of the statement in the Education Review Office annual report saying that of the schools the office has reviewed this year, 29 percent have “no useful information about the achievement or progress of their students”; if he is aware of that, what action does he intend to take?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Minister is aware of that—that the Education Review Office found that 30 percent of schools did not have useful information about progress, as that member said. Research tells us that it is important to have good assessment information. The Government invested $8 million last year in developing good assessment tools for schools, and in providing professional development for teachers. These results are the Education Review Office’s early findings; the full report will be released next year.

Moana Mackey: What is the Government doing to focus the education system on making a difference for every child?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Lots! Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has increased education funding by more than one-third, doubled funding for early childhood education, increased teacher numbers by 3,000 above roll growth, and focused on the quality of learning, so that every student has a chance to reach his or her potential.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister happy with the current National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) internal assessment rules, which see students missing out on NCEA credits because their schools do not allow second chances to resubmit improved work for credits failed, while other schools actively encourage this practice; if he is not, will the Minister finally instruct all schools to offer this opportunity to students?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: NCEA sets clear standards, and recognises excellence. The Government is committed to continued refinement of the NCEA changes for 2006, which include making the record of learning and results notice clearer to understand, having internal results available online earlier, and no longer recording the grade-point average. Those who promulgated NCEA have done a great job up till now.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister at all concerned that after 7 years of Labour being in Government, a 35 percent increase in education expenditure, and 3,000 new teachers, the reality for parents is that their child has a one-in-three chance of being at a school that does not know the achievement of their child, and does not know what progress that child is making?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As I said earlier on, we are refining that, and building on it. When that member was in Government, nothing was done. He left a pack of rubbish, where kids had no chance, and where people who had been educated were left on the scrapheap. We have done something about it.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister intend to spend some of his multimillion-dollar publicity budget—which he generally spends promoting himself—telling parents that despite 3,200 new teachers and a $1 billion increase in the schools budget, there is now a one-in-three chance that any New Zealand child is at a school that does not know what that child can achieve and that cannot measure his or her progress?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is not true. New Zealand is transforming into a knowledge society, which means that our education sector needs to do that. But I can tell the member how good this Minister of Education has been. Rarely did Māori in the seventh form go to university, 3 or 4 years ago. At Turakina there are 22 seventh-formers in total who are all going to university this year. Two of them are going to teachers’ training colleges, and two of them are going into the Navy. That is outstanding success, and it mirrors what is happening in the education forum. A lot of good things are happening.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister intend to communicate with those 29 percent of schools that do not follow the sound educational practice that has been adopted in the other 71 percent of schools, or do he and union leaders and bureaucrats intend to sit around in the Beehive holding hands with their complacent consensus, while one-third of New Zealand children attend schools that do not know what is going on with those children?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There is nothing hollow about this Government’s role in relation to education. We are very, very clear that the bureaucrats—the public servants—work very hard, along with the boards, along with these Ministers especially, to ensure that children have a better chance in school. The results speak for themselves. Read them!

Hon Bill English: Can I take it from the Minister’s responses to the questions today that in light of the Education Review Office finding that 29 percent of schools reviewed this year have no useful information about their children’s achievement and progress, he plans to do precisely nothing about this scandalous problem?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In answer to the first part—no. If that member has not listened to them, I want him to listen to this. We base our progress on good information, like the example of the Clutha Valley School, which was raised last time. The Minister of Education had done plenty, but that member came in and made out he had done nothing. Now that the summary is done, and only one little thing has not been done, that member tries to make out it was in collapse—like the Education Forum. It is a lot of rubbish.

Hon Bill English: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer to that question that he regards the fact that one in three children in New Zealand attend a school that does not know what those children are achieving, as another “little thing” that is not done; and how would he explain that to the tens of thousands of people who are voters, taxpayers, and parents of children who attend schools that do not know what those children are learning?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am not sure where that member has been in the last few years; because he knows that the education system is performing very, very well. What we need in the 21^st century is not the archaic policies that he left behind, but certainly that our people are skilled, have the knowledge for the contemporary time, and that we take this education programme forward together—not be destructive like that member.

Protected Disclosures Act—Amendment

4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: Is the Government considering any amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: Yes. The bill would give the Ombudsman an enhanced guiding, monitoring, and investigating role in respect of whistle-blowing. Other amendments would clarify and extend the group of people who can whistle-blow and come within the Act’s protections.

Charles Chauvel: Would the effect of the bill be to extend protection to whistle-blowers wanting to expose important public figures whom they believe have been acting unethically, dishonestly, and even illegally, and getting away with it?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The bill will extend assistance and protection to such groups. It may also discourage efforts to suppress such information by legal injunction—such as Dr Brash has done to try to stop the public finding out what his actual thoughts and actions were, and what motivated him. It is worth the Opposition thinking about the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who once said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Dr Brash is clearly concerned about his actions being exposed to sunlight.

Gerry Brownlee: Do the answers that the Minister has just given to those two questions mean that the police were wrong when they asserted that they could not prosecute the Labour Party for its massive election overspend—its $850,000 corrupt dip into taxpayer funds for its pledge card—because it may involve a prosecution of a staff member, when at all times that staff member would have been protected by this legislation, and Helen Clark should have been put in the dock, had the police been more competent in their investigation?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It does not mean that, but before the member points the finger at somebody else, his party should pay back the $110,000 it has not paid for its advertising. National should admit that it went over the limit and face the punishment it will get by way of a fine. It should own up and pay up!

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that when the Government asks itself a patsy question and it goes terribly wrong, Ministers like Mr Goff lose their cool. But that answer bore no resemblance to the primary question, whereas, in fact, my supplementary question to Mr Goff did. I would like an answer.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The answer is no.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has answered the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do we take it that this legislation would not protect the likes of Heather Simpson from police prosecution, should she have chosen to dob in the Labour Party—as she should have?

Madam SPEAKER: No, we are getting into a debate. But if the Minister wants to clarify the answer, he may. Then we will move on.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The answer is no. The premises on which the member asked his question were quite wrong.

Charles Chauvel: Would the legislation protect those responsible for leaking Government information, such as that with which the National Opposition has been involved over many years?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The legislation is designed to promote the public interest by facilitating the disclosure and the investigation of serious wrongdoing. It is doubtful that any of the National Party leaks could be defined in this way, but the definition most certainly would apply to the sorts of allegations made against Dr Brash and other senior National Party figures from within the National Party itself. The double standard is that the party that claims to believe in transparency and openness absolutely refuses to apply those same principles of transparency and openness to itself.

Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to remain in the House for question time, they will please keep their interventions to a reasonable level.

Charles Chauvel: Are the amendments being proposed consistent with strengthening democracy?

Hon PHIL GOFF: They are absolutely consistent with strengthening both democracy and openness. By contrast, the use of injunctions to suppress information that is in the public interest, as Dr Brash has attempted to do, is, as the New Zealand Herald states today, “not healthy for our democracy.” Those who claim that they are ready to be trusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be open to scrutiny. The National Party is not prepared to accept that, and it is certainly not ready for power.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Do I assume that the high-hatted attitude taken by Mr Goff means that Helen Clark will now release all the discussions that took place in her office over the decision to rort the taxpayer of $850,000 for electioneering purposes? Why cannot the Labour Party be honest, open, and accountable?

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that is not a point of order.

Whangamata Marina—Minister's Decision

5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: When will the Minister make a decision on the Environment Court recommendation for approval of the Whangamata Marina resource consents?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): I have written to the Environment Court seeking clarification of some issues, and once the Environment Court has responded to that request I hope to be in a position to make a decision.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, when this resource consent has now been in the process for 13 years and when Ministers in his Government have been directly responsible for 14 months of delays, has the Minister not met the 20-working-day requirement for giving a decision by Friday 17 November, and, as he is the Minister responsible for the Resource Management Act, what sort of example is he setting for councils and others considering consents when he takes so long to make a decision?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I need to make it clear to the member and to the House that this process is a court process and not any process that I have determined.

Sandra Goudie: Why has the Minister lodged a whole series of questions to the Environment Court on its decision on the Whangamata marina when it has spent over 20 days in hearings considering the evidence; and what does this say about his level of confidence, as Minister for the Environment, in the Environment Court?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I lodged the questions because I wish for the court to clarify some issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who will pay the $90,000 awarded by the court against Chris Carter’s illegal decision?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have no responsibility for any such decision.

Sandra Goudie: Does the Minister, as Minister responsible for the workings of the Resource Management Act, consider it acceptable that the Whangamata Marina Society has had to spend $1.4 million and 13 years in trying to get a resource consent?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have no opinion on those two matters.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, does the Minister appreciate that the people of Whangamata have spent a lot of time and money in going through the correct legal processes, and that they are entitled to an answer; and does he not feel inclined to at least recommend to his colleague that that answer should come immediately, and preferably in support of the Environment Court’s recommendation?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Can I repeat for the member my answer to the primary question. I have written to the Environment Court seeking clarification of some issues, and once the court has responded to that request I hope to be in a position to make a decision.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister think it is fair that when a marina society wants to build a marina on the Whangamata waterfront it is subject to 14 years of resource management process, but when Trevor Mallard wants to build a 60,000 seat stadium on the Auckland waterfront, the Government will override all that law and have it done within a few months, and is this not a case of one rule for the average citizen and a different law for the Government?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not about to enter into a debate about the member’s idle speculation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the Minister to reply to a question—a quite legitimate question that is on the public’s mind, to the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act, as to why there should be one set of rules for the Whangamata Marina but quite a different set of rules for a stadium—and for the Minister to say he just will not comment, I do not think meets the Standing Orders’ requirement for a Minister to address the question.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Speaking to the point of order, the primary question was clearly about the responsibility that has been transferred to me in terms of this decision. It had nothing to do with my other separate responsibilities for the Resource Management Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister will note that question No. 5 is set down for the Minister for the Environment. The Minister for the Environment is responsible, by statute, for the administration of the Resource Management Act. For him to now argue that he will answer this question only in respect of the very narrow responsibilities delegated to him around the Whangamata Marina is quite out of order, and he should have to address the question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Unfortunately, the problem the member has in this regard is that this question can be addressed only to the Minister for the Environment because he has been delegated this particular decision, and, therefore, the question is solely about that particular decision.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members. The question is rather narrowly expressed. However, I believe that the Minister addressed the question. Obviously it was not in a way that was satisfactory to the member, but he did address it and others will determine whether it was adequate.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that there will be compensation due to the Whangamata Marina Society, and what figure would he guess that would be?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have no responsibility for any such opinion or decision.

Stadium—National Party Support

6. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: Is a decision by the Government to proceed with a stadium on Auckland’s waterfront dependent upon the National Party committing to support the necessary special legislation; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister for the Rugby World Cup): No, any legislation to empower the construction of any stadium will require 61 votes, which may or may not include the 48 votes of the National Party.

Rodney Hide: Has the Government had a commitment from United Future and New Zealand First to support the special legislation that is needed to ensure the waterfront stadium; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government is involved in a process. We are awaiting an Auckland decision. The nature of that decision may well have a serious impact on the nature of any support that is given and therefore the potential to pass any legislation. I note—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He doesn’t know.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not know what the outcome will be. I note that the special legislation required—possibly—to ensure the Eden Park option can proceed is already supported by the National Party.

Rodney Hide: Is the Minister aware that the Eden Park Trust Board believes that it does not need special legislation; and is the Government putting a gun to the head of Auckland and telling it to decide this week when, in fact, the Government cannot ensure the numbers that, should Auckland decide in favour of a waterfront stadium, or against, would get the necessary legislation through?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the Eden Park option is adopted then clearly there will need to be further examination of the process around that. The risk, of course, is that if the process proceeds on Eden Park without legislation and then some problem occurs—for example, protracted legal process of a sort that we have just been referred to—Eden Park will not be able to be extended and we face a major difficulty.

Keith Locke: Why is the Government using up the goodwill of New Zealanders towards funding projects in Auckland by throwing so much money at a billion-dollar waterfront stadium, when clearly the greatest need in Auckland is for more money—hundreds of millions more dollars—to be spent on transport, particularly public transport?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government is spending billions more on transport in Auckland, including public transport, not a mere hundreds of millions. If the Green Party might like to make that an offer, I am almost inclined to accept it and look at what else we could then spend the rest of the money on.

Immigration Service—Communication with Associate Minister

7. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday that “I can confirm that Mr Tavita, the group manager of service international, attempted to communicate with the previous Associate Minister’s office.”; if so, what did the group manager of service international attempt to communicate to Mr O’Connor’s office?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes, because that is the information I received.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How credible is it that after the previous Minister of Immigration, the Hon Paul Swain, agreed that the group manager for service international, Mr Tavita, should pass on to previous Associate Minister Damien O’Connor the concerns held at the highest levels of the New Zealand Immigration Service about the number of submissions by Taito Phillip Field that Mr O’Connor was approving, Mr O’Connor’s experienced private secretary for immigration, Nicola Scotland, would simply not pass on those concerns to Mr O’Connor?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am not aware that the previous Minister had that conversation with the group manager of service international.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How credible is it that after an off-the-record and unverified phone call from compliance officer Murray Gardiner, Ms Scotland would immediately rush into Mr O’Connor’s office to tell him of Mr Field’s involvement with Thai nationals in Samoa, but would not pass on to Mr O’Connor information contained in a logged phone call from the group manager of service international, Mr Tavita, on 9 June 2005—information that Nicola Scotland knew was highly relevant to a decision she knew was in front of the previous Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor at that time?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: With respect to the member, may I simply restate that there is nothing new in his question. These matters were fully investigated in the Ingram inquiry, and the Ingram inquiry concluded as to what was the most likely chain of events. If I may, I will add that naming individual public servants who are unable to defend themselves hardly does a member of Parliament credit.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How credible is it to claim that Mr O’Connor’s private secretary would not pass on to him two separate major concerns from one of the highest levels of the New Zealand Immigration Service, the group manager of service international, the first about Mr O’Connor’s decision-making in response to submissions from Taito Phillip Field, when the previous Minister of Immigration had agreed such concerns should be raised, and the second about Thai tiler Sunan Siriwan working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa while Damien O’Connor was actively considering Mr Field’s submission on Mr Sunan Siriwan’s behalf; why should that claim—failure to pass on those two separate lots of information—not be seen to be anything other than an organised cover-up?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I respectfully reject the presumption of the question. According to the advice I have received, there was no question as to the previous Associate Minister’s decision-making.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do the Minister and his department support the dual process that is happening in respect of this matter—namely, the public inquiry being conducted by the police and the private inquiry being conducted in this House every day by Lockwood Smith?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I thank the member for his question, but I think that the questions from the member opposite hardly constitute an inquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Did deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson and the group manager of service international, Mr Kerupi Tavita, raise concerns about the number and nature of immigration submissions by Taito Phillip Field that Damien O’Connor was approving because their concerns mirrored those of whistleblower Keith Williams, who has reported that Taito Phillip Field boasted: “The Minister and I have got an arrangement between us. I do things; he does things. I’ve got an arrangement with him.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I note that the Ingram inquiry found Mr Williams to be entirely without credibility.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does it help to disprove allegations of an arrangement between Taito Phillip Field and the previous Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, when Mr O’Connor approved 60 percent of the representations made to him by Taito Phillip Field, while his successor, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, has approved just 16 percent of the representations made to him by Mr Field?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am no more at liberty to second-guess the legitimate decisions of former Ministers, properly made in accordance with the law and the information put before them, than I am to assess that member’s work for his old boss, the Hon Tuariki Delamere.

Digital Content—Government Initiatives

8. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister for Information Technology: What reports has he received on Government initiatives to increase access to high-quality New Zealand digital content?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology): The Hon Judith Tizard, the Minister responsible for the National Library, and I launched the Draft New Zealand Digital Content Strategy last week. The digital content strategy is a 5-year plan that aims to help bring New Zealanders online. Creating Kiwi content is important to ensure that our unique heritage and national identity are strong, visible, and available in cyberspace, thereby supporting an innovative and creative knowledge-based economy.

Lynne Pillay: Why is this digital content strategy important to the future of New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Digital content is important because it can foster new product development and knowledge that will contribute to economic transformation. It has the potential to be a major area of skilled employment and export-led growth over the coming decade.

Sue Kedgley: What is the point of investing in smart new high-resolution, high-tech, and high-quality digital television, if all we have to watch on it is the same old diet of mostly low-quality foreign programmes and reruns; and will he therefore urge the Minister of Broadcasting to seek much more funding for New Zealand programming, to ensure that all this investment in digital technology is actually worthwhile?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The question would be better put to the Minister of Broadcasting. But my own view is that he has done very well already for Television New Zealand.

Fraud—Zero Tolerance

9. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that his ministry has a zero tolerance policy for fraud?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes.

Judith Collins: Why would he have confidence in his officials’ ability to implement a zero tolerance policy for fraud, when 3 years ago they first noticed a discrepancy in the benefit being paid to Wayne Patterson, who went on to defraud the taxpayer of $3.4 million; and can he confirm that it was a bank worker, not his officials, who eventually raised the alarm?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I would point out to the member that that case has not gone to trial.

Judith Collins: It has so!

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Sentencing has not been—[Interruption] Unlike that member, I am not about to risk compromising a successful prosecution and recovery by making any comments about the matter.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister confirm that, although his ministry first noticed a discrepancy with Patterson’s benefit soon after he started offending 3 years ago, were it not for the conscientiousness of a bank worker, Patterson would still be collecting $27,000 a week from New Zealand taxpayers—a crime for which he has been convicted?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I repeat for the member that I will not risk prejudicing good recovery by talking about the details of any case currently before the court.

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members of Standing Order 112, which covers the period right up to sentencing.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister have confidence in the Ministry of Social Development’s fraud detection, when Wayne Patterson’s $3.4 million scam was discovered only because of a conscientious banker, when prisoners have been ripping off StudyLink, when $35 million has been defrauded or overpaid in the last year alone, and when a study to determine the extent of benefit fraud has been declined by his ministry; just how many frauds will it take for him to consider that his zero tolerance policy for fraud is simply nothing more than spin?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It might help the member if I elaborate on the meaning of zero tolerance. I would have thought most people would understand it, but I will attempt to make it clearer for her. Zero tolerance means that the ministry is clear that benefit fraud is a crime and is unacceptable in every circumstance. That means that the ministry investigates every instance or allegation of fraud, pursues recovery of all money that has been overpaid, and prosecutes in accordance with the Solicitor-General’s guidelines.

Judith Collins: Why has his ministry blocked a proposal made by its general manager of benefit integrity services for a study to reliably determine the extent of benefit fraud?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It is clearly an operational decision that I would neither know about nor have any interest in, but I will say that I am completely satisfied that the ministry has made appropriate decisions with regard to the management of fraud. Indeed, I know from questions asked in this House last week that the member is aware that benefit fraud has dropped by around 11 percent in the last year.

Judith Collins: If it was not considered necessary for the Minister’s ministry to conduct a study to reliably determine the extent of benefit fraud in this country, then why did his general manager of benefit integrity services call for such a study; if the Minister does not know the answer, why does he not know it?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have just answered that question.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister made even the slightest attempt to address that question. Could you ask him to elaborate?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed it by reference to a previous answer, but if the Minister wishes to elaborate, of course he is free to do so. But he does not.

Climate Change—New Zealand Policy Leadership

10. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What role has New Zealand played in recent international developments in climate change policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): In addition to the Prime Minister’s leadership at APEC, New Zealand officials played key roles in Nairobi processes under the Kyoto Protocol. We co-chaired the programme on international cooperation on adaptation, which is of particular relevance to low-lying Pacific States. Perhaps more important, we were also active in negotiations of future commitments by annex 1 countries. New principles were agreed to be applied in deliberations on future emission reduction commitments post-2012. These principles, I would suggest to the House, are of fundamental importance to New Zealand. They mandate analysis of mitigation potentials and technologies available to countries like New Zealand, taking into account both sectoral dimensions and the means available to reach emissions targets. This is of importance to New Zealand’s unusual emissions profile, a substantial proportion of which is methane emissions from ruminant digestion for which there is currently no mitigation technology.

Madam SPEAKER: That was a very long answer.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What other steps were taken by New Zealand on the subject of agricultural emissions?

Hon DAVID PARKER: New Zealand is also at the forefront of research on the reduction of agricultural emissions, which will both improve farm productivity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials held a very well-attended presentation on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This caused strong interest from both developed and developing countries interested in the coordination internationally and the co-funding of research on agricultural emissions. I pursued this in subsequent—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please wind up his answer.

Hon DAVID PARKER:—bilateral meetings, and those countries especially interested include Ireland, the UK, Argentina, and Brazil.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister tell the climate change conference in Nairobi that the answer to climate change was greater cooperation, when he has refused point-blank any cooperation on policy in New Zealand by failing even to reply to a letter sent from National last December suggesting a cooperative approach, by locking National out of any discussions on a policy way forward, and by—unlike previous National and Labour Ministers—excluding any Opposition representation on New Zealand delegations that have been involved in discussions about climate change beyond 2012?

Madam SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister I will just remind members that although answers are meant to be of a reasonable length, so are questions.

Hon DAVID PARKER: For the last 7 years every positive move on climate change has been opposed by National. I have to admit there was an about-face 2 weeks ago in respect of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. Secondly, I would note that I went to considerable effort to invite every member of Parliament, from every party, to the free showings in both Wellington and Auckland of An Inconvenient Truth before it was on general release. Every major party was represented except National, which did not even bother to show up.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative approaches to international engagement?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have received a report stating that France is considering punitive taxes on imports from non-Kyoto Protocol countries. The European Union is also considering punitive measures. Both reports have caused considerable alarm in Australia. I have also received a report advocating that New Zealand consider withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. That report does not even mention important trading partners or the implications for trade with the European Union, Japan, the UK, etc.—all Kyoto members. The second report comes from the National Party, which does not even consider the implications for trade.

Peter Brown: If the Government is prepared to take a lead on climate change—as the Minister has just indicated—what is the Government’s attitude to China, which is Kyoto exempt until 2012 and is bringing on stream a new, large, coal-fired power station just about every week?

Hon DAVID PARKER: China is not exempt from Kyoto. It is not subject to mandatory annex 1 emissions reduction commitments during the first commitment period, but that is not to say that it is not making considerable efforts to reduce its emissions. It has to do more, but a report that was released at the Nairobi conference, by one of the thinktanks in the United States, showed that the emissions reductions below business as usual levels in China and India are greater than those that have been planned in the United States.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Noting that the Minister has said that he has excluded National members from involvement in international climate change conferences because we had not seen Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did not actually say that. Would the member please come to the point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, that was what he insinuated, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: That is the member’s interpretation, which is fine, but would you please come to the point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When does it become a point where the Speaker now becomes a commentator on the political—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Dr Smith. Points of order are to be made succinctly, not with great prefaces of comments and statements. That was my intervention. Will you please make your point of order without the editorialising.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the agenda of National’s blue-green conference at which the movie An Inconvenient Truth, was shown—6 weeks prior to the letter from David Parker inviting National members to see it.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an article from the Reuters correspondent in Paris dated 14 November, entitled “French Prime Minister today proposed introducing punitive taxes on imports from Australia and other countries that refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol”.

Madam SPEAKER: I shall remind members that points of order are heard in silence. If members wish to remain for the rest of question time today, please respect that. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a document, downloaded from the National Party website yesterday, advocating that New Zealand consider withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Te Puni Kōkiri—Confidence

11. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes; it is a hard-working and a conscientious ministry.

Gerry Brownlee: When Te Puni Kōkiri expanded its staffing levels by 18 percent between 2002 and 2005, why did his ministry also feel the need to increase the numbers of contractors on the books, and consultants, by some 67 percent?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As that member would know if he were experienced enough, one has to get specialist help in any restructuring. My ministry has advised me that the expenditure on contracting and consulting has decreased dramatically.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Expenditure on consultants has not decreased dramatically; it has increased by 67 percent. The question for the Minister asked why. He did not address that. He cannot address the question, surely, by saying that the facts we have had to provide to the Clerk’s Office are wrong.

Madam SPEAKER: As I heard the Minister’s answer, he did address that the increase had in fact come from a restructuring. There were two parts to the question. He only ever has to answer one.

Dave Hereora: What does the Minister see as the key strength of his ministry?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Minister! Alongside their Minister, certainly it is the ministry’s 10 regional offices and the face-to-face connection and experience they have gleaned over years, even when working under Tau Henare, and the connection with iwi, hapū, whānau, and other Māori communities.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Minister name himself as being the key strength of this ministry, when, in response to written questions 7657, 7658, 7659, 7660, 7663, 7664, and 7665, he responded that the Minister of Māori Affairs has no responsibility for what Te Puni Kōkiri does?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is true in the sense of directing the operational matters—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Members are going to leave this Chamber, because other members cannot hear the answers. Members are on their last warning—and it is the back row, again.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Operational matters are the responsibility of the chief executive. But this Minister certainly travels enough to have a look around the country. He does a lot more travelling than Tau Henare ever did in his reign.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What support can Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister give in having land no longer required for educational purposes returned to the original owners, or their descendants, such as the Whakaangiangi School on the East Coast; and would he not agree that this is an opportunity for the potential of Māori to be realised, as per Te Puni Kōkiri policy?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Just about 10 days ago I was at Whakaangiangi School as the Associate Minister of Education, after I had been all around the country. There is a land banking process in relation to support for the Treaty settlements, and, sadly, I join with the member from the Māori Party in this. We are ensuring that we cover those matters as quickly as we can.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of comparison, I seek to table the evidence that in 1991—

Madam SPEAKER: Who is intervening? We have to get some order into this House, please. Who was intervening on that tabling?

Hon Tau Henare: I was.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, and so was the Minister. The Minister can remain until he has answered the question.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Phil Heatley: Aw!

Madam SPEAKER: Who said “Aw!”? Phil Heatley—out!

Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table the evidence that in 1991 the Māori Affairs budget was $239 million, and by the end of National’s reign with Tau Henare it was $39 million.

Document not tabled.

Gerry Brownlee: Was he responsible for contract 7107, which reads: “To develop and provide an issues management system that will progressively deliver information and systems management functionality to Te Puni Kōkiri specific to the relationships in information whaihanga.”; if so, what does that mean?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: One can always understand snide chuckles. But, no, it is an operational matter. Can I tell that member, and those sniggering over there, about what they have been up to. They started off with the Ōrewa Brash attack. They did that, then they moved on to discuss the delineation of Māori blood, then they went and had tea with my friends from the Māori Party to see whether they could curry up with some real Māoris, and now they continue with their cultural sniggering, which is utter rubbish in this great country.

Gerry Brownlee: Was the Minister involved in the description of another contract, which reads: “To contribute to the relationships and information project phase 2 by providing advice and cooperation development and implementation of sub-deliverables contained in phase 2 project plan to manage the SHAZ, to ensure certainty of service delivery during the change interpretation to SHAZ and its transition period, to establish professional relationships with all sectors of SHAZ and HINZ, to develop succession plans, documentation to Te Puni Kōkiri’s role in SHAZ and HINZ, to carry out such reviews of SHAZ and HINZ as may be necessary.”; if so, what the hell are “SHAZ” and “HINZ”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That shows that the member does not understand the housing portfolio, and he is trying to make fun of a lot of effort put in by people. I want to know why he left the financial review this morning after 12 minutes. He did not bother even to stick around.

Gerry Brownlee: I left the financial review after 12 minutes this morning, because Te Puni Kōkiri had a script written by that Minister, and I did not understand a word its representatives were saying.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In the light of the fact that the Opposition spokesperson on Māori affairs does not know what special housing action zones are, would the Minister like to organise a briefing for him, to try to rectify his ignorance on these key matters?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As long as he stays longer than 12 minutes, I will give him all the information he needs.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister agree that in these nine pages of very tight type, where literally millions of dollars are dished out by Te Puni Kōkiri on contracts that appear to have very little to do with advancing the cause of Māori, there is a problem; and is that part of the reason why Māori lag so far behind the rest of the community on income statistics?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: A lot of money is spent on Māori—understandably. I remind that member that when he was last in this House in Government, 41,500 Māori were on the unemployment benefit. That number is down to just under 14,000 at the moment. The average hourly earning rate—

Judith Collins: What about poverty levels?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The member should get her facts right. The average hourly earning rate for Māori has increased from $13.11 in his time, to just under $19 now. What is that about?

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister stand by his own statement to this House that Māori income, compared with non-Māori income, sees Māori households being around $9,000 a year worse off than non-Māori households; if so, what is he doing to demand better performance out of the Ministry of Māori Development?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Ministry of Māori Development, along with other mainstream ministries, has put a lot of effort in. It is right that those households are lagging behind. But a fair bit of that comes out of the decrepit policies left by that member and his Government in their time. I can tell members that it was through their influence, and I will brief that member on information on that, because a hell of a lot of outcomes like this have come out: 50,000 more Māori are in jobs right now, 92 percent of all Māori who want to work are working, 86 percent of Māori children between the ages of 1 and 5 are in early childhood education, 10,000 more Māori are in highly skilled apprenticeships, and almost another 10,000 are adding, 18 months at a time, to skilled occupations. [Interruption] It is a lot more than you ever did, so put that in your pipe, big boy, and smoke it!

Hon Parekura Horomia withdrew from the Chamber.

Smoking—Marketing of Light or Mild Cigarettes

12. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Smokefree Coalition that the descriptors “light” or “mild” for cigarettes are “deliberately designed to give the false impression that light or mild brands are less injurious to health than so-called regular brands when evidence has clearly established that this is not the case”; if so, does he have the power to ban the use of this kind of marketing?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: Yes; and yes. I agree that such terms may be interpreted by consumers as meaning they are smoking a less harmful product. Parliament does have the ability to pass legislation to ban the use of such terms. However, the Commerce Commission is currently reviewing potentially misleading terms on tobacco products, and I support this review. It is appropriate to await the outcome of the commission’s review, and I note that this is how the issue was dealt with recently in Australia.

Metiria Turei: Will the Government consider requiring that all tobacco displays in shops are put out of sight, so that children, for example, do not associate cigarettes with the lollies they see around them, and requiring all tobacco packaging to be generic—practices that would go some way towards curbing the kind of deceptive and dangerous marketing currently going on in New Zealand shops?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, issues of that ilk will be considered.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What actions will the Minister be taking, following the World Health Organization’s indigenous forum on tobacco control, held in Auckland last week, in which a consistent theme was that the severe lack of resources allocated to Māori tobacco control groups such as Te Reo Marama, Te Hotu Manawa Māori, and Aukati Kai Paipa was injurious to indigenous health; and does he not agree that the fact that 44 percent of Māori are still smoking is an issue that requires significant investment, for the betterment of the health of the nation?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As Minister of Health, I have advised the Associate Minister of Health that it is probably the case that there has been some underfunding of cessation programmes, and that further tobacco control funding might be expected in the May 2007 Budget.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that very few smokers make brand choices while in the shop—that is, that the brand a smoker starts smoking will be the brand that that smoker dies smoking; therefore, the only reason tobacco companies want to have their products on display in shops is as a marketing tool to attract, particularly, new and very young users to be hooked on tobacco?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Associate Minister of Health has been advised that the sentiments behind the member’s question are, for the most part, accurate.

General Debate

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. People ask me, and they have asked me for some time, why it is that I have vigorously opposed the covert agenda of Don Brash and some of his colleagues. Well, the answer to that question is becoming clearer by the day. We recognise something in Don Brash that few others would have, or could have. Some of us were in the National Party in the late 1980s and early 1900s when Ruth Richardson, and a covert group of extreme neo-liberals, sought to undermine all that was once good about the National Party.

The puppet masters, driven by a rabid and heartless scorched earth economic philosophy, ravaged this great country by exporting the radical policies of privatisation and massive sell-offs. We all lived through this, and some of us made a principled stand back then—and we left. We are making a principled stand again, now. They are sad about that.

Hon Maurice Williamson: You got sacked.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was the only real leader that National ever had. Does National realise that? It is obvious. That is why those members are sitting over there, with their noses pressed against the window of power. They will do so for a long, long time—that is, until they change their ways.

We saw in Don Brash, in 2003, a devout disciple of the far-right agenda, and a man whom the puppet masters could again manipulate into their subversive agenda. We went through, as a party, the ignominy of them pilfering our policies in utter ignorance and never being able to explain them, when asked on TV what did it mean and what was it all about. We, along with others, have had to endure National’s smug attitude and the frenzy surrounding the election spending imbroglio. Talk about being hoist with their own petard—pay back the GST. It is as clear as daylight—pay the GST. [Interruption] Oh, no, we have the money to pay. We just want to know whether it is lawful, and we are going to find out.

We have had to watch the most unbelievable obsession of the media over the false prophet of Ōrewa inflicting rank and division upon an unsuspecting nation.

Judith Collins: Aw!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Judith Collins says “Aw!”. Of course she says “Aw!”. She is one of them. The first thing she did was stab a good lawyer in the back—out at Clevedon. That is typical of that sort. She went behind his back, conspired against a sitting member, and it shows. That is why she is not really popular in National.

David Bennett: She is. You’re not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no she is not. I can see the looks in the eyes on the second row and the third row. They think she is a bit of a lightweight. They do, and they are right. But there are some good people in the parliamentary National Party—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Name two.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: There are at least six. We know that, and they are the ones who helped to write a book. Because what we had here was covert activity with big business, with the Exclusive Brethren, and we had outright deception, day after day, in the media. They have been found out.

Judith Collins: Tell us more about Bob Clarkson, who beat you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member should not make a lot of noise like that. It does not help her cause. I do not why she is asking about taking a beating, because obviously there is not one present, apart from herself. And it shows. There is a constant cackle from members opposite, because they are embarrassed by the fact that soon a book will come out to show the public what they are all about.

I know the National Party. I know there are members out there making cakes, walking up and down the village streets and hamlets of this country, and knocking on doors trying to sell the blue flag. But when the book comes out, they will know that all that work, all their going to conferences, all the remits were utterly for nothing. Because the National Party is up for hire. The National Party has been bought.

David Bennett: You took all the baubles of power.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Does he know what a bauble is? A bauble is a trinket not worth having. What on earth is he talking about? A bauble, for the benefit of that illiterate fellow from Hamilton, is a trinket not worth having. What on earth are the media talking about? It is high time someone got the dictionary out and tried to understand what words mean. Because words are important in the game of politics.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That speech was made by a very, very sad and disappointed politician, and I say to Winston Peters: “Winston, get over it, move on, forget about it; we have.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, I know what the member is going to say.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: One would think that when a member has been here for some time, he might learn a few Standing Orders, and in the case of Mr Brownlee clearly he cannot grasp what the import of that is, but he cannot use a person’s first name; and particularly in my case, seeing he is so junior to me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Peters. There was no need for that last comment.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Be fair, Mr Assistant Speaker. Let me start again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): OK

GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise for referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters as Winston, and simply say that we forgave that guy, once called Luigi, for the way in which he treated the National Party in the 1990s, so why can he not move on?

The reality is that in the last 24 hours we have seen the peace activist trying to make his peace with Helen Clark. There is no doubt about that. This man has a long history of all sorts of alarmist publications. Nicky Hager is simply a man who has very low credibility. He is the man who recently told New Zealand that the SIS was delving through the activities of the Māori Party, and Helen Clark thought: “Here is an opportunity.”, so she sent in Justice Neazor, who discovered that no such truth existed, at all. This guy had, in fact, been duped by the source in that case. Then there was the case he brought up of the engineers in Iraq. Nicky Hager alleged that members of the New Zealand Defence Force who were there as part of the reconstruction effort were fighting alongside British soldiers under British command. That was utter rubbish. It was wrong.

This is the man who wrote the book Seeds of Distrust, in which he attacked Helen Clark. What was the response from Labour at the time? He was not credible, it was a load of nonsense, and it was untrue and contained scurrilous allegations; it was written by a man with no credibility. This is the same Nicky Hager who wrote the book Secrets and Lies in 1999, in which he spoke about the Timberlands scandal. None of it was true. Not one of the pages in that book carried a single truth. It was roundly discredited. He is a man who indulges in intrigue and in the activities of scurrilously besmirching any individual he does not like, without any care whatsoever. He is a man who, a couple of days ago, would have been described by Helen Clark as completely disreputable, but who, in a day or so, will suddenly be the great saviour—apparently—of Labour.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This is the rescue party? You’re the rescue party?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I say to Clayton Cosgrove that the book will be published, it will be a joke, and everything that Labour has been saying for the last 12 months will blow away in the wind.

Winston Peters stood in this House and waved around the emails. He said that this was it; this was going to cause the trouble. And as soon as he found out that there was some investigation, he magically had them destroyed in his office. Helen Clark had those emails. Helen Clark knew that a book was to be published. She said so on the tiles on television just a few months ago. They have been working with Nicky Hager, apparently to put together what was originally described as a “telephone book full of emails”.

Well, the reality is that this is a series of hollow, nothing allegations. They will not stack up any better than Nicky Hager’s recent outburst against the Echelon system—Secret Power, a book he wrote about something the Defence Force was supposed to be doing with the Orions. That was totally discredited. I ask anyone to stand up in the House today and say of one published work by Nick Hager that it is the truth and that it does stack up. Not one publication does.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Hollow Men.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I hear Dr Cullen over there yelling out that the publication will be The Hollow Men. Well, it is no surprise to us that Dr Cullen has that title firmly fixed in his brain. We know that he has been in cahoots with Nicky Hager. We know that he gave Nicky Hager the title of the book, because he first mentioned the theme about 18 months ago, in his concluding speech at a Labour Party conference.

When a Government is discovered to be corrupt, when it has lost its moral mandate to govern, and when it comes into the House and learns that the health system is a mess and the education systems lacks any accountability, and it has to put up with the ignominy of a minor coalition partner grandstanding over a senior citizens’ card that means nothing, then we know why it is behind Nicky Hager’s book.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): If I were in the same party as Gerry Brownlee and if I were ever in trouble, I would hope like hell someone else was sent to rescue me. Gerry Brownlee could scarcely contain himself at the thought of being one step closer to his ambition. Bill English is the same. What did the New Zealand Herald say about Bill English? It said he would get over his bitterness—but he will get over his bitterness, he hopes, by exacting utu on the man who betrayed him and stabbed him in the back.

Any credibility that Dr Brash had left must surely have been destroyed by his taking out an injunction last week. In my entire time in politics I cannot recall any political leader taking out a court injunction in order to stop his or her own actions and views on public issues from being published. That is what Don Brash is doing. I have never seen a leader so scared that the exposure of his actions and his thinking will reveal deceit and double standards. There are only two things keeping Don Brash in his seat today. One is the mutual distrust and hatred between the pretenders who want his job: Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, John Key, and, some even say, Simon Power, such is the depth of the desperation of the National Party. The second thing, of course, is the indecisiveness of John Key and the uncertainty among his colleagues as to whether he has what it takes.

What Don Brash is suppressing, Mr Chairman, is not details about his private life. I do not give a damn about his private life; I just wish he would be consistent in his judgment of others, given his private life. What Dr Brash is suppressing—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the speech, but I do think we need some decorum. We should refer to the Speaker as the Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not take any inference from that.

Hon PHIL GOFF: What Dr Brash is suppressing are his actual thoughts about public issues and his real motivation and actions, which he does not care to have exposed. This is the man who says he believes in transparency and openness as Leader of the Opposition, but does not apply those same principles to his own thoughts and actions. Perhaps Dr Brash fears that the exposure of his cables and emails will show that what he thinks is not what he says, that the people he represents are not the mainstream that he claims to represent, and that, far from being the innocent and rather naive politician that he would like to portray himself as, he is a deeply cynical man in everything that he has done. He does not want the private actions of Dr Brash contrasted with what he says publicly, because that is death for Dr Brash.

I have not seen the book. I am told, however, that it contains a number of emails, among other things, from National Party secretary Steven Joyce, from Don Brash himself, from John Key—interestingly, the man who claimed he had nothing to do with the Exclusive Brethren—and from the Exclusive Brethren themselves. Will Dr Brash now admit, before it is exposed, that he knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s plans to spend $1 million - plus on electing a National Government months before he denied any knowledge of these plans? He claimed that he knew nothing about them when, in fact, he knew all along what they intended to do. That will be shown in the emails.

Will the National Party admit that for months it had been communicating over the wording of the substance—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is referring to emails. Standing Order 111, “Matters awaiting judicial decision”, applies here, and the member cannot refer to the emails. I ask that he withdraw those comments and apologise for them under Standing Order 111(b).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. The member speaking has freedom of speech and, if he considers it right, he has the opportunity to raise that issue through debate in the House. He is doing just that.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is exactly freedom of speech that this debate is about. Dr Brash does not want the public to know—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect very carefully on that ruling. During the 20 years that I have been in this House, members have been given very stern warnings from Speakers that if any matter is before the court, members do not have the right to override the directions of the court and raise it in the House. In fact, a Minister today refused to answer a question on a particular issue because the case involved—even though the defendant has been found guilty—has not yet gone to sentencing.

You have just said that it is up to members of this House to decide themselves if they wish to raise any matter, whether or not it is before the court. Mr Assistant Speaker, I think that flies in the face of every ruling I have heard over my time, and I ask you to reflect on it seriously.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution and refer him to Speakers’ ruling 32/4. The issue is not currently before the court. Speakers’ ruling 32/4 states: “While members are not bound in the House by a suppression of name order, they should use their privilege to break such an order only in the most exceptional circumstances. Members should take care never to abuse the privilege of free speech, and, in that respect, they should respect the position of the judiciary in the judiciary’s sphere, just as members would expect the judiciary to respect the privileges of Parliament.”

Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, I do not want to make it sound as though we are particularly touchy about this. I am sure you will allow the debate to flow. But the point that was raised by Mr Williamson remains open. The reality is that what we are talking about is an interim injunction while the decision about an injunction is being considered by the court. Further to that, there are three applications before the court, I understand, to have the interim injunction quashed. So to say that this matter is not before the court is wrong.

Having said that, I make it very clear that we do accept your decision with regard to the freedom of speech in this matter and that it will be observed by us. But I think that just racing to that particular determination might, in other cases, do a little damage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his considered reply. We live in a democracy, and there is freedom of speech, but I ask the member to be careful in what he says to the House.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on the point of order.

Christopher Finlayson: This is a new point of order. The matter is still before the courts. An aspect of it may be dealt with by way of interlocutory application for an interim injunction. The matter is still before the court and the substantive matter is yet to be tried, so, in actual fact, it is quite wrong to say the matter has been dealt with.

Russell Fairbrother: As an ex parte injunction, this is not an interlocutory injunction. It remains standing until a party files an application to review. It is a final judgment on an ex parte application.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the honourable member that there are subsequent actions. The member needs to be careful about the issues he raises. Under those circumstances, I now call the member.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The National Party is deeply embarrassed by what may be revealed about Dr Brash, because the fact has come out that this is not a stolen or hacked email; these are emails, or letters, or information given by members deep within the National Party who are probably known personally by Dr Brash.

The title of the book being suppressed by the party that claims to believe in freedom of speech is The Hollow Men, a title taken from a poem by T S Eliot. It implies a lack of principle, substance, and decency at the core of the National Party leadership—not simply in Dr Brash, but in Mr Key and others, as well. Maybe “hollow” is not the right word, because the National Party core may be devoid of principle and policy substance, but it is amply filled, as we will see, with ambition, cynicism, double standards, and dishonesty.

I say to Dr Brash that it is time to go, but do us one last favour and lift the injunction so that we can see the evidence ourselves and determine the truth. For the National Party, the T S Eliot poem may be prophetic. It ends with the words that the world will end, “Not with a bang but a whimper.” So it will be for Dr Brash.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I invite the House to imagine the conversation that occurred at the Labour Party campaign committee where its members first laid out their plan for finances and communication for the 2005 election year. I wonder whether the conversation went the way that Heather Simpson told the police it went. She said: “The pledge card is a normal part of our parliamentary communications. Of course it will be funded by the Parliamentary Service. It is nothing to do with the election campaign.” I do not think that is what was said. The fact that we do not have a verbatim email or transcript of the conversation does not mean there is any lack of doubt about what would actually have been said, which would be along these lines: “If we fund the pledge card from the Parliamentary Service, it will cough up half a million dollars that we don’t have to find ourselves, and then we’ll be able to breach the election spending cap and, what’s more, use public money to do it.” We would be deeply cynical of any representation of that conversation.

Imagine the conversation that went on before the election around the pledge of 20 hours free early childhood care. Steve Maharey has been telling early childhood sector audiences around the country: “It was a snappy election slogan and we knew we could never do it.” It is true; he cannot do it. He cannot give all 3 and 4-year-olds 20 hours free early childhood care. Any transcript or email of that conversation would, of course, look deeply cynical.

I thought it was telling today that even Labour Party members laughed at the prospect that Dr Cullen would regard Nicky Hager as a credible enough person to talk to. Did members see the laughter? That is because Labour Party members know that Nicky Hager is a left-wing stirrer. This is what they have said about him. Helen Clark said: “My advice as a Minister, from a long-time public servant, is that Nicky Hager’s book is a work of fiction. I think it is clear the stories have no substance.” Then she said: “It is an outrage, these conspiracy theories.” Here is Pete Hodgson talking about “corngate”: “This story is a beat-up of mammoth proportions.” And Trevor Mallard: “There is a wide variety of fiction available in New Zealand, including Nicky Hager’s Seeds of Distrust.”

Every time this man has written a book it has not lived up to the hype—every time. I can guarantee this one will not live up to the hype. This is a man who finds some dots and, by the time he has joined a few of them, he has a mountain. He joins the dots and creates a vast right-wing conspiracy out of what would honestly be the normal business of political parties dealing with the contending pressures of lobby groups, public opinion, media, daily tactics, and the strong desire to win an election.

Everyone in this House knows that a transcription or description of any Labour Party meeting about anything to do with a campaign or, in fact, almost any decision at all, would look, to the public, as juicy, exciting, cynical, tricky—

Hon Member: Tricky!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no doubt about that. Is it not rich to be lectured on principles by a party whose Prime Minister has been interviewed by the police more times than every other Prime Minister in the 20^th century put together? Is it not a bit rich to be lectured by a party about principles, against whom three prima facie cases have been determined by the police in the time it has been in Government? Is it not a bit rich to be lectured on principles by a party whose members set out at the last election deliberately to break the cap on election spending, with the cynical calculation that they would get away with it?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): The 1925 poem by T S Eliot says it all:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Our dried voices, when

We whisper together

Are quiet and meaningless

As wind in dry grass

Or rats’ feet over broken glass

In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,

Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

What a great description of the Don Brash - led National Party; a “paralysed force”—paralysed since Don Brash walked into the National Party caucus room without the numbers but came out with the prize because he delivered the simple message to that caucus: “No Brash, no cash”. That is what he took into that room, that day. He said that if the leadership were to change to him that day, the money would flow, and boy, was he right because money bucketed down. It did not just flow, it bucketed down.

One of the emails we can talk about in this House—because it has been produced in the inquiry into electoral spending—is where the Exclusive Brethren ask how they put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of “getting party votes for National as this is the only way change will come about.” That was absolutely disclosed in an environment where National wanted to keep that information hidden.

We know where some of the money came from then, but only because it has been disclosed through that process. We have a good idea where the rest has come from.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be difficult for some members, but during the course of debate the difference between debating material and the truth and facts should be apparent. It is a fact that the piece of paper the member talks about was not sourced from the National Party but from the Chief Electoral Officer. To suggest that a communication of the Chief Electoral Officer somehow indicates some sort of bad dealings or skulduggery is quite wrong. The only skulduggery in the last campaign was Labour’s inappropriate rorting of taxpayer funds.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I have taken note of what you said, and I ask the member to be careful.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I can understand the sensitivity of that member. I was saying that the public would not have known, if the email to the Electoral Commission had not been disclosed in the course of an investigation. It showed that the Exclusive Brethren were prepared to spend $1.2 million, which the National Party did not want us to know about, to get party votes for National. They wanted to make sure that it did not show up on the National Party’s electoral spend.

No wonder members are sensitive on that side of the House; they could not spend $1.2 million on their entire electoral campaign without going over the limit, but they were quite happy to have $1.2 million spent on their behalf, behind the scenes, in a dirty, tricky way.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a pamphlet, produced at an estimated cost of half a million dollars by—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated. Mr Brownlee, you have been here a long time and generally that sort of thing happens at the end of a member’s speech, rather than interrupt it. It can be seen as a frivolous interjection, which can lead to disorder. I ask the member to seek leave at the normal time.

Hon Mark Burton: I understand the sensitivity the members opposite have, but we are seeing a concerted campaign today to break up speeches made by members on the Government side of the House, and the latest was one of the worst I have seen, particularly from a senior member. Accordingly I seek leave to have the member’s time started again in order that she can deliver her speech without that sort of tacky intervention from the other side.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Hon Member: They just can’t take the heat.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The matter has been dealt with.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to question your ruling at all, but I recall earlier in the debate that you acquiesced to a request from an Opposition member, on very, very frivolous grounds, to have the clock restarted. I invite you, if you would, to reflect on that as you may be reflecting on that ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I always reflect on those things, Mr Cosgrove, and I am aware of the situation.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am aware, obviously, that the members opposite may want to table a particular piece of information around the Council of Trade Unions providing a pamphlet to some of its members, in support of the Labour Party. That was disclosed in our electoral expenses. It was put in as part of our electoral expenses. I think it is a bit rich for members on the other side of the House to refer to that, when they know perfectly well that $1.2 million was available to be spent on their behalf to gain party votes for National, and not one cent of that was disclosed in their electoral return.

We all know that there was a quid pro quo and for that number of “quids”, there must have been an awful lot of “quos”. We now want to know what that was all about. What was hidden in the paper trail that the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to hide from the public? Why did Dr Brash seek an interim injunction last Friday when he has known about the leaked emails for months, yet according to his own words he did not know that a book was going to be published this week? How coincidental is that? I bet Gerry Brownlee is even regretting his own comments last week, when he said that anyone who used email would welcome the decision of the court in respect of the interim injunction. This is not the case, and I think the New Zealand Herald editorial says it all: “Blanket injunctions of the kind that Dr Brash has obtained are not healthy for our democracy. Those who ask to be entrusted with power have to accept that their dealings should be an open book.”

That is the bottom line. That is what we keep coming back to. The National Party does not want its dealings to be an open book, and I say that its members are not to be entrusted with power. Don Brash has something to hide, John Key has something to hide, and others on that side of the House have a lot to hide. They do not want public scrutiny of the types of negotiations that occurred between the secret funders and the hierarchy of the National Party. They are not entitled to be entrusted with power. Anyone who thinks that Don Brash will be the only one who will benefit from the injunction should think again. I hope we find out more about those other individuals who knew a lot more about what was going on than they have cared to disclose.

John Key is trying to distance himself from this because he knows that it will taint him with guilt by association. Well, guilty he is and associated he is, and we will find out the truth of this. Although he is their aspirant leader, he is very close to the secret funders and far more acceptable to them than Bill English will ever be.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I have been waiting for months now, since the start of this year, for a Labour member of Parliament to take a 5-minute slot in the general debate and use that time to stand up and defend the actions of his or her colleague Taito Phillip Field. On no occasion has one member taken the opportunity to get up and back that member of Parliament. So while big issues are going on around New Zealand, such as the fact that Mr Taito Phillip Field is on full pay and apparently doing very little, this Government is consumed with the petty small-mindedness around a series of alleged emails that have yet to be published.

Well, is it not interesting that while the Labour Party decides it is going to deal with those sorts of issues, under its watch over the last 12 months, crime in this country—a serious issue—has risen by just under 7 percent? When will those members spend some time in this Chamber dealing with that issue? When will they spend some time in this Chamber dealing with the fact that under their watch, violent crime has gone up in this country by 26 percent? We never hear anything from the Labour Party about that issue.

Today we heard three snippy little speeches from Labour Party members. Where were they, to rise in this House and speak, when a 95-year-old woman, walking to the shops to buy some milk, was mugged by two youths for $2? We did not see Labour Party members on their feet then—[Interruption] Oh, Judith Tizard chips in. It is good to have the Minister back. Where has she been this week?

In the last year, police have been expected to deal with 6,800 youth offenders through family group conferences. That is what they have budgeted for. Instead they dealt with 11,700 youth offenders. Where were the Labour Party members who got to their feet and talked about that appalling statistic? They were nowhere to be seen—too busy chipping away at what the National Party had or had not been doing. This week Mark Burton finally got off his backside as Minister of Justice and introduced to this House a bill to try to reduce the prison population—not to address crime or the causes of crime, but to try to put to bed the embarrassment that the Prime Minister feels every time she meets with one of her fellow socialist country leaders from around the world.

Phil Goff must be spinning in his grave. He used to proudly greet the news of a rising prison population as proof that Labour’s tough on crime policies were working. Well, Mark Burton has finally decided, after 14 months, to do something legislatively. He is the Minister whom the New Zealand Herald gave two out of 10 for his first 6 months as Minister of Justice. As a result of his initiatives, the length of sentences served by people in New Zealand will reduce by 25 percent.

Well, that is not what the public of New Zealand voted for in 1999 when 92 percent of New Zealanders said they wanted tougher and longer sentences, not shorter and more community-based sentences. That Minister should stand up, take a call, and explain to 92 percent of New Zealanders where the mandate came from for that sort of legislative programme to be progressed. All the time the Department of Corrections lurches from crisis to crisis. The CEO of that department described it as his worst year. The Minister of Corrections disagreed, saying: “I don’t think it’s been a bad year for the department.” Well, he should read the newspapers and talk to Mark Burton about the fact that reducing the prison population is not the answer to reducing crime, and it is not the answer to preventing a 95-year-old woman from being mugged for $2. That does not answer the problem. Those members should not come to this House and lecture this country about what National should or should not be doing. They should get off their backsides and fix the crime problem in New Zealand.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. My Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was pulled out of the ballot in June of this year, and was set down to be debated today, but I have decided to delay it. I do not think Parliament is quite ready yet to have the rational conversation about medicinal cannabis that is needed. My bill would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act so that doctors, not politicians, will decide whether a person should be prescribed this drug. It is a critical issue for ill New Zealanders that deserves to be treated with the utmost care and consideration. Instead, today, a 2,991 signature petition was tabled asking that Parliament give urgent consideration to changing the law to allow individuals to obtain, possess, and use cannabis for treatment of serious medical conditions when this has been recommended, or endorsed in writing, by the individual’s registered medical practitioner. This petition will go to the Health Committee, enabling members of Parliament to investigate the legal framework options fully.

Cannabis does have proven medicinal properties. Research from the US, Israel, Germany, Britain, Canada, and other countries has proven that it is useful in treating HIV and cancer wasting syndrome, nausea caused by chemotherapy and other pharmaceutical drugs, muscle spasms, neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, and chronic pain that simply cannot be relieved by other conventional medicines.

Cannabis is prescribed every day in other countries. In Canada and in 11 states in the US cannabis can be grown for medical use. In Britain, Sativex, a pharmaceutical preparation, is used by doctors on a case-by-case basis. In the Netherlands the equivalent of our Ministry of Health distributes medical grade cannabis through pharmacies. In New South Wales there is a 4-year trial project proposed to allow patients with severe nausea and severe pain to access medicinal cannabis. It is not being provided for the purposes of smoking, I hasten to add for members. It can be, and is being, delivered in forms that are dosage-controlled, effective, and rapid, and which completely avoid the need to smoke the raw material like a cigarette. Smoking of cannabis for medicinal purposes is simply not an issue.

Here in New Zealand there is ample community and medical support for medicinal use. A television poll recently showed that 63 percent of people agreed that it should be available by prescription. The New Zealand Medical Association has said that the benefits and delivery systems for medicinal use should be researched in this country. There is support from organisations like the New Zealand AIDS Foundation and the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and significant pharmacological research is being done in New Zealand at the moment. A doctors’ survey in 2005 found that one in five doctors had patients that use cannabis for medicinal purposes. Thirty-two percent of those doctors surveyed would consider prescribing it if it were legal, and 10 percent had current patients who they believed would benefit from it. Surely this is a medical issue and not a political one.

But evidence, research, community and professional support are not the barriers to amending the law to make prescription for medical use easier. There are hundreds of ill New Zealanders with an absolutely genuine need for this drug who are either, because of the law, criminals and facing jail, or are left in pain and isolation because they are too frightened of the law to use it to relieve their suffering. Patients with a variety of conditions from chronic social anxiety to Nail Patella syndrome are desperate for a legal framework that will allow them to use this drug—desperate for a legal framework that will protect them from both the police and from thieves.

The evidence of effectiveness is overwhelming. The models for a better system are ours for the picking. The only real barrier to enabling an easier and more humane system for prescription cannabis is the prejudice that some people hold against cannabis users. It is this prejudice that means that as a community we deny ill New Zealanders access to a viable, useful medicine. Surely we have a responsibility wherever practicable to relieve the suffering of sick people.

Medicinal cannabis can be provided to patients in a safe, medically supervised, cost-effective way, and prejudice should play no part in its medical application. My bill and the petition tabled today are about taking politicians out of the medication decisions by doctors and, instead, allowing doctors to make medical decisions about the best options for their patients.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): I recall my old days at St Bede’s College, the wonderful Catholic school that both Gerry Brownlee and I attended. Not being the best Catholic in the world, I can remember the words of a certain scriptural proverb that goes like this: “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” I am told Dr Brash is a scriptural scholar, so he should read that from the Book of Proverbs. I will not concentrate on Dr Brash in my speech, because, of course, he is a dead man walking—RIP, gone, the body bags are out.

I find it interesting to see which National members have spoken in the debate today. Gerry Brownlee, Bill English, and Simon Power have spoken—all three are leadership contenders. Has Dr Brash spoken? No. Has Mr Key been up there defending his reputation, which he will be forced to do in the coming days? No, but we have had Huey, Dewey, and Louie—the three leadership contenders.

The debate over Mr Hager and his so-called credibility, which Mr Brownlee raised, is immaterial. As Mr Hager has said himself, the people will judge when the book comes out. Two questions remain. Firstly, what has National got to hide and, why will it not lift the injunction; and, secondly, the difference with this book of Mr Hager is that if he is accurate in what he says, and if he has the goods—he got the goods from the famous six National Party sources, to match the famous seven Exclusive Brethren that that mob lined up with, and he has the email evidence leaked by them—then that is evidence. That is the difference between this book and Mr Hager’s differing literary contributions.

The debate now moves to the pretender, Mr Key. If Mr Hager is accurate in what he says, then the tentacles of this conspiracy extend to the Exclusive Brethren. To quote Marilyn Waring on the evidence contained in this book: “I would expect to see much of the evidence set out in the book reported to the Electoral Commission, Parliamentary Services, the police and the Auditor-General.” I go on to quote Mr Hager from an interview this morning. The interviewer asks: “How damning is it on those three people?”—that is, Key, Joyce, and Brash. Mr Hager replies: “Well, the public can judge. I think the book will be here soon.” He quotes John Key as saying he knew nothing about the pamphlets until they arrived and the Brethren said it. Mr Hager continues: “Don Brash continues to say it. I am amazed he is digging his own grave, saying that he only heard about it at the end of August.” Mr Hager adds: “That is simply not true.”

Well, the question for the National caucus is, of course—when it finishes digging the hole and dropping Don Brash into it—whom you replace him with. The problem you have now is that you have a tainted John Key—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—and I ask whether John Key is as good at his rhetoric as he will be at his defence. He will have to get up and defend his integrity and his credibility over this issue. It will not be the slipshod foreign exchange dealer kind of stress that he had when he was trading junk bonds and trading down the New Zealand dollar—oh, no. His feet are firmly against the fire.

I have some questions for Mr Key that I would love him to answer. He could end this debate today, of course, if he did what I challenged him to do and made a personal explanation. If he did that, he could shut it down today. He could come into the House and say that whatever Nicky Hager has is wrong, is out of it, and is not true. These are the questions I have for Mr Key. Is it true, as has been reported to me, that Mr Key has hired one of New Zealand’s top public relations companies, that one of the principals in that company is now working full-time on a rescue package for Mr Key’s reputation, and that they are being paid directly—Mr Key has a few bob; good on him—from his pocket? What is the firm; is it working full-time—will Mr Key front up and tell us that?

Secondly, is it true, as has been reported to me, that Dr Brash and Mr Key have hired a top QC and one of New Zealand’s top four law firms, not the one over there that Mr Finlayson belonged to—Mr Finlayson missed out on his QC, of course—but a real one, to defend him against a potential privileges case? Who is the lawyer, what is the firm, and who is paying? I also ask Mr Key again whether he will stand up in the House today and make a personal explanation—unchallengeable by the House—and deny the lot.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): When the validation legislation was going through this House a few weeks ago, Labour made very strong protests, of the nature that it had not known that the spending was illegal and did not know that the pledge card would be included in its election spending, as it had never been in the past. Labour said it should therefore be forgiven. That was the basis of Labour’s defence—that it did not know the spending was illegal, so it was passing retrospective legislation to validate its actions.

Well, today I will table a number of documents at the end of this speech. The first one is a file note written by David Henry, the former Chief Electoral Officer, dated 30 August. The note states: “I telephoned Mike Smith General secretary NZLP re the attached”—the pledge card—“(which is being distributed nationwide to letterboxes … I asked him why it did not carry an authorisation statement. He says that it is being paid for by Parliamentary Services and is therefore not required to have one. He also says it does not call for the party vote. … I said that: 1. who pays for it does not matter 2. it does not need to specifically call for the party vote. so far as the Electoral Act is concerned.” I want members of the House to remember that date—30 August. The election did not occur until 17 September. In other words, 18 days were left to run when the Labour Party was told that, in quite specific terms, by the Chief Electoral Officer.

But David Henry was sensible, and in the next 2 days he put that advice in writing. I will be seeking to table the letter from David Henry dated 2 September, which says those same words again to the Labour Party. It says that the pledge card would be included as election spending and should have carried the authorisation, and that the fact that it was being paid for from Parliamentary Service funds was actually irrelevant, as was the fact that it did not specifically ask for the party vote. The letter goes on: “Would you please … confirm that the advertising is being distributed … advise whether you or your delegate authorised the advertising … state why the advertising carries no statement setting out the name and address of the person” who authorised it. I ask members to listen to the fourth point, because it is a doozy: “put forward any points you wish to make as to why this matter should not be referred to the Police as an illegal practice.” Did members hear that? That is what the Chief Electoral Officer said to Labour on both 30 August and 2 September.

Had Labour wanted to comply with the electoral law, it could have easily cut back on other election spending and kept itself within the limit. But, oh no, it tried to hoodwink the public of New Zealand by saying that it was a bit rich to come back after the election was all over and say the rules had changed. No, the rules had not changed. More important, Labour was given a full, absolute warning by David Henry. I have another letter here from David Henry, dated 12 September, which goes further into the matter. Again, it was written before the actual election day—a full 5 days before—and said to Labour that it could not keep spending at the level it was spending at, because the pledge card was incorporated in its election spending.

It becomes really interesting when we get to the shenanigans over the smokescreen, which I have to say is nothing short of what people have said about the stadium on the waterfront. I refer to a letter written by Trevor Mallard, the Minister for Sport and Recreation. He wrote this in a letter to a person in Tauranga—the House will love this; it is one of my personal favourites: “… Government support of events such as the America’s Cup and the Rugby World Cup are investments not donations. Full analysis, including an independent assessment of the potential economic impact, was undertaken before any decision was taken by Government to support the Rugby World Cup bid.” Members should remember that—a full analysis and independent assessment; an independent economic evaluation. Yet that same Minister tells this House that he does not know what the stadium will cost. He says he has no idea what the stadium will cost or what it will actually blow out to, yet he says there has been a full, independent analysis. He says that robust numbers were compiled.

But here is my personal favourite—I ask the House to listen to this; this is what the Minister Trevor Mallard stated: “We do not need a national stadium as such to host the event. The developments proposed for Eden Park are sufficient for us to be considered a serious bidder.” for the Rugby World Cup.

So there is the Minister, stating in writing that we do not need a national stadium. There is the Minister stating that, in fact, the full economic costings have been done, and none of it is true.

I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a copy of a file note written by the former Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry, dated 30 August.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Secondly, I wish to table a letter dated 2 September 2005 to the Labour Party general secretary, Mike Smith, from the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Thirdly, I would like to table a letter dated 12 September to the general secretary of the Labour Party from the Chief Electoral Officer, David Henry.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Fourthly, I would like to table a letter dated 12 August 2005 from the Hon Trevor Mallard, in which he says to a Mr R Jordan of 20 Talbot Place, Tauranga that there is no need for a national stadium, and that the developments at Eden Park are sufficient for the Rugby World Cup.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): The Hon Clayton Cosgrove observed just moments ago that the afternoon had been a bit of an audition for the future of the National Party leadership. That audition ended when Maurice Williamson took the call. The first three National members who came out to speak were Gerry Brownlee, of course, because he has to; Bill English, because he has another position in mind that he is quite keen on; and Simon Power, who gave a repositioning speech—not seeing the elephant in the room, at all. Simon Power wanted to talk about everything apart from a certain book lying in a warehouse somewhere. He wanted to show that he was the visionary statesman, and a man of substance on law and order issues. But the only thing we can ever remember about him is the following remark: “Wheresoever our troops are called upon, without reservation we will follow other countries.” It will take many years before the memory of that remark will go.

After those three people had spoken, nobody else wanted to speak. Nobody else in the National Party wanted to take a call and defend the leader—apart from Maurice Williamson, of course, who has gone through four or five epochs of time when it comes to the leadership. He is looking forward to Mr Bolger’s grandchild coming in as the National Party leader. The member for Pakuranga will still be there. The next National member who looks as though he will speak is Tau Henare. Mr Henare does not bother too much about what the topic of the day is; as long as he can stand up and let off a bit of steam, that suits Mr Henare’s deep political philosophy.

So that is the National Party line-up today: the deputy leader, who is paid to speak in that regard; Bill English, who wants his old job back; Simon Power, who is trying to fix up a previous mistake; Maurice Williamson, who is kind of eclipsing them all; and Tau Henare, who cannot believe his luck that he is back in here.

Politics is a very interesting place. We have seen the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, out around the place and around the world. We have seen her being able to advance New Zealand’s trade interests at APEC, being able to push the issue of climate change—which the National Party has only just woken up to, in Opposition at least—and being able to see her Government’s policies come through by way of the Supergold card, in partnership with New Zealand First. Those policies are happening internationally and domestically to make a difference, and the Prime Minister is showing what leadership can do to make a difference for ordinary people.

What has been going on in the Opposition leadership while the Government leadership has been busy on behalf of the people? Well, quite a lot. But most of it has been taking place not in Parliament—not on the floor of the House—but in the courtroom. National members have been trying to defend their leader and trying to see whether they can shift political debate. The most interesting thing about what we are seeing at the moment is that this is not an attack by the Labour Party on the National Party; this is an attack on the National Party by the National Party. This is how these people treat each other. They reserve all their venom, all their disloyalty, and all their sense of strategic purpose, not for an attack on Labour, New Zealand First, United Future, or the Greens—oh no; they reserve all their strategic brilliance for undermining and undoing each other.

Of course, Don Brash is a person who will not be in politics for a whole lot longer, so let us not focus on Don Brash too much, other than to mention a remark he made that appears in Nicky Hager’s preface, which he has made available to the media. Nicky Hager states: “Don Brash had a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those whom Brash described as [omitted owing to the injunction].” I want to know from Don Brash how he describes the New Zealand people in his email when he is talking about us, because the court said that it could not be printed, and it is quite clear here that it has been omitted. I want to know what language Don Brash uses when he is casually referring to the New Zealand people when talking to his colleagues. We know that Nicky Hager states that his approach is “deeply cynical”, so why does Don Brash not take a call and tell us how he talks about New Zealanders? I suspect that that will be one of the most embarrassing things for the National Party when the information comes out.

I ask National members this question: how many of them are proud of the injunction taken by Don Brash? How many of them back their leader over the injunction he took last Friday? Not one single hand went up on the Opposition benches. Not one of those members believe that what Don Brash did last week was in the best interests of New Zealand democracy. All of them are sitting on their hands, because they will not back their leader.

But this is not about Don Brash any more. It is much broader than that. It now goes to John Key. John Key, who is the putative leader of the National Party—we know that only because that is what he tells everybody—is lining up for the job, but he will find his credibility under attack in this book. Here I have a photo of Mr Key, the member for Helensville, meeting in his electorate office with two of the strategists for the National Party, who are members of the Exclusive Brethren church. There is nothing wrong with that; one can meet with those kinds of people if one wants to. But when we find out that those people are writing National Party policy and strategy, having an influence on the campaign, and donating $1.2 million in kind to the National Party, it is of concern. And that is not a Labour Party claim. The Exclusive Brethren wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer saying they wanted to spend $1.2 million. The Chief Electoral Officer wrote back to the National Party and asked, as one of four questions posed to it, what it would do about that. National answered the first three questions but could not answer any others.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I think that it is very clear that the stories Labour members have run have no substance. I predicted, correctly, that the election campaign would be dirty, and this is dirt without precedent. These conspiracy theories—all by Helen Clark about poor old Nicky Hager—are an outrage. We have heard more in the House today from Labour member after Labour member, including Clayton Cosgrove. He is the poor fellow who went to St Bede’s. The best 5 years of Clayton’s life at school were spent in the third form. And it is about time that he stopped using paraquat for hairspray.

But let us cut to the chase—stolen property. Let us talk about—[Interruption] Oh, mine is natural. Let us talk about stolen property. Never mind the old fellow from New Zealand First, never mind the former president of New Zealand First—

Hon Member: Did he quit?

Hon TAU HENARE: He quit, but that is another story. Some years ago a member of this House stole another member’s diary, which is private property. As far as I am concerned, that is private property.

R Doug Woolerton: I remember that.

Hon TAU HENARE: It is good to hear Doug Woolerton saying that he remembers that. Emails sent and received are private property. I could not give a toss what is in those emails; the point of fact is that somebody stole them and somebody used that stolen material.

As members know, I was brought up in the 1960s in a nice home back in South Auckland, in Ōtara, where the welfare officer was none other than Pita Paraone. He used to say: “Do the right thing. Never steal; never use stolen equipment.” He said that.

But I tell members that that is exactly what the Government is trying to do here. It is saying to the folks of New Zealand that if they steal from the National Party, it is OK. If they use stolen goods from the National Party, it is OK. The “orange roughy” that got up to speak before me was on about using stolen property just for a good laugh—not mentioning the fact that there is nothing in Nicky Hager’s book that actually could not have been published.

Let us not forget that the injunction was about emails. It was not about Nicky Hager’s book, but Nicky Hager wanted the publicity. He wanted the publicity, so he pulled his book. There is no such thing as an injunction against Nicky Hager’s book. Nicky Hager pulled his book. Nicky Hager is nothing more than a media—well, I cannot say the word I was going to say.

Hon Member: Yes, you can.

Hon TAU HENARE Well, a media whore, basically. After the media publicity about his book—and now Clayton Cosgrove is pointing to his head. I do not know why he is pointing to his head, because there is not a hell of a lot in there. He is looking for something, but it is not in there. It is supposed to be in Nicky Hager’s book. As I said, pulling the book is nothing more than a big publicity stunt, backed by none other than Helen Clark.

In the time I have left, let us talk about how, 6 years ago, Winston Peters told the nation that he had evidence of a dog meat trade in China. He was going to write to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Phil Goff. It never happened. He had all of that information. The question is whether, in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters has contacted the Chinese people about the dastardly trade in St Bernards—

Hon Maurice Williamson: And poodles.

Hon TAU HENARE: —and poodles, and all sorts of kurīs or dogs. Where is the letter? Where is the campaign that the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, 6 years ago, that he was going to lead? What is he, in his capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, doing about it?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): For the benefit of the people driving home and listening to their wirelesses, the farmers milking, and the people who were going about their business and listening to that, I say that that speech was made by a man called Tau Henare. Do people remember Tau Henare? Do members remember him? Tau Henare said: “I will never serve in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley.”

Darren Hughes: No, he didn’t say that, did he?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, he did.

Hon Member: And Bolger.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: And Bolger. Guess what? Tau Henare served in a Cabinet led by Jenny Shipley. I think there is a word for that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, there is a word for that, and members are not allowed to say it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is an imputation, and members cannot get around the rules against unparliamentary language by a circumlocution. I suggest the member look at Speaker’s ruling 51/4 from Speaker Barnard in 1937.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: As soon as I finish this excellent speech, I will go straight to Speakers’ Rulings and look that up.

There is something extraordinarily smelly within the National Party at the moment. There is a question that has not been answered by any of the National members, notwithstanding the fact that they have wandered all over the place and talked about everything else except the issue that everybody else is talking about. That is what is funny about National members—they always seem to be talking about the things that nobody else is really interested in. We are talking about the issue, and the question is what the National Party has to hide. It is as simple as that. I ask National members what they have to hide.

Hon Members: Nothing.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: They have nothing to hide! If there is nothing to hide, why not lift the gagging order? I think that National members have a lot to hide actually, which is why they have asked for the gagging order.

This is what Nicky Hager says about what is in his book: “The story that emerges is an extraordinary case study of unprincipled and anti-democratic politics, repeated cases of deceiving the public, hidden agendas, dodgy election finance issues, and, underlying it all, a deeply cynical approach to winning the votes of those who Brash described as …”—and that is the bit that is omitted. We want to know why that was omitted. Maybe it referred to the things that Dr Brash talked about in the election campaign. Maybe it was about the good folk of New Zealand.

Moana Mackey: Mainstream.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Maybe it was about mainstream New Zealanders. Maybe Dr Brash is now scared to have mainstream New Zealanders represented in the work by Nicky Hager. I say, though, that if Dr Brash has nothing to hide, then he should lift the injunction.

The problem that National members have is that they are absolutely and totally snookered by this. If they do not lift the injunction, then everybody will think they are up to no good. If they do lift the injunction, then everybody will know they are up to no good. So there is absolutely no question of why they do not want to lift the injunction.

As John Armstrong says: “The overwhelming view of those who have seen the emails is that he”—that is, Dr Brash—“is a goner, and the only question is the extent to which the book damages Mr Key.” So there we are. We all know that Don Brash is history, because we all know that what he says privately is not what he says publicly. The thing about this book and these emails is that they will show, once and for all, all of the things that Labour members know—that what Dr Brash says publicly is not what he tells people privately. People cannot do that in politics, because sooner or later they get caught out—and Don Brash has been caught out.

What about John Key? Well, John Key started saying in an interview that he was not involved with the Brethren. But he suddenly realised, halfway through his sentence, that he should not have been saying that, and that he really should be saying that the Brethren were not involved in his campaign. There is a nice photo of John Key having a discussion in his electorate office with members of the Exclusive Brethren. The real problem for the National Party now is that this book will be bad for John Key. So there goes Don Brash and there goes John Key. All the other pretenders are lining up with glee. There is something smelly in the National Party.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Employment Relations (Probationary
Employment) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I move, That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Today Parliament has an opportunity, and that opportunity is to help people get a job. That is the whole reason why I moved the bill in the first place. I say to the House that it is why certain parties in Parliament—United Future, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and ACT—actually voted for the bill at the first reading. If we go back and read the speeches of those parties’ members, we see that there was a common theme: how to boost employment, particularly for those struggling to get that first job. A common theme through this Parliament is that this bill is to help get people a job.

Without exception during the select committee process, employers and, indeed, many others said that the bill would make it easier to make that job offer, especially for small to medium sized business enterprises. For them, an additional person is a big decision. If they get that decision wrong, then it can be disruptive, not so much in terms of money but in terms of management, disruption, employment relations, and so forth. That is exactly what small employers said to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. In this country 95 percent of all employers are small to medium sized enterprises. This bill is designed to help them. That is why the Government’s own advisory group has said to this Government time and time again that the most important thing the Government can do for those employers is to give a probation period in our employment relations law.

What does the Government say? It just casually ignores that. Members on the other side talk about transforming the New Zealand economy. Well, why do they not do something that would make a difference? Why do they not listen to the people who actually do the employing? Why do they not take advice from those people?

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from a wide variety of people: employers, employees, business groups, trade unions, young people, and immigrants. In all cases there was consensus that this country needs to do something to boost employment, especially for people who find it hard to get that first job. Naturally, there was some disagreement about how that might best be done. The employers certainly said that this bill would make a difference—and bear in mind that these are the people who make the initial employment decision. Some passionate submissions from employers came on that very point. They said that this bill will make a difference. I refer parties in this House to this particular fact.

I have spent a lot of time on the radio and elsewhere saying that this bill is aimed at youth employment. Youth employment is substantially worse than general unemployment. It would not matter quite so much if the gap was narrow, but it is actually getting worse. Young people are finding it harder than older employees to get that first job. So the gap is widening.

I remind the House of this one stark statistic: Māori youth unemployment in the 15 to 19-year-old age group is over 25 percent. One in four young Māori who would like to get a job cannot get one. Why? The reason is that no one will offer them one. One would think that, in our environment of relatively low unemployment, people could get a job if they wanted to, yet 25 percent of young Māori cannot get that first job. They find there is a resistance, for whatever reason. It could be due to skills, presentation, background, or whatever, but they just do not get that initial job offer. The gap is growing and is getting worse year by year. I have heard the Minister of Māori Affairs say in this House that the gap is closing. He is wrong. The gap is actually widening, and this country has a very serious problem ahead of it.

Having listened to the speech made by Dr Pita Sharples, I understand that that was precisely the reason for the Māori Party actually voting for the bill at its first reading. Its members said they wanted to hear the arguments in the select committee. They also said they wanted changes made to the bill, and, in a debate with Mr Hone Harawira, I said I would make changes to it. They know that. They have had those changes for nearly a month. The changes reflect the concerns of the submitters. The Māori Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the United Future party have been listened to. I took their points on board, have made amendments, and will seek to table my amendments later today.

In the report back to the House I set out the reasons for those changes, because it was recognised that the bill was not quite right. I point out that the concerns came not just from employees, which was predictable, but also from Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. They were concerned that there was not a fair process in the bill, initially, and they wanted a proper system of warning—some sort of notification—as to whether the probation period was working out. They wanted a mediation process that was prompt, efficient, fair, and reasonable, and that is exactly what many of the submitters who opposed the bill also wanted. I carefully listened to those submissions and have indicated in the numerous interviews I have had with Mr Hone Harawira and Mr Andrew Little—including on radio and television—that I would take their concerns on board. I have done so, and I will be tabling my amendments.

The Māori Party knows full well that its principal concerns are being taken into account, so I was a little disappointed earlier this week to receive a letter from the co-leader saying that the Māori Party was likely to oppose the bill. I make this observation: if the party said in August: “Oh no, we don’t need to hear any more of the submissions. We’re going to change because of some constituency pressure.”, then it does become difficult to change again. I understand that, but I say to the Māori Party to, at least for the future, allow the process to take place and judge the report by what has come out of the select committee. That is what the Parliament has it for.

I say to New Zealand First members—whose deputy leader, Mr Peter Brown, voted for the amendments that I have proposed—that they know full well that what we are really debating in the House today is the bill as it would be if it included the amendments I am putting forward today. That is how this bill would be put into the law. I say to them that if it is good enough to vote for the amendments in the select committee, then surely it is good enough to vote for them in this House today at the second reading.

I turn very briefly to those amendments. The first change is to confirm, so there is no doubt whatsoever, that probation periods would be a voluntary agreement—not mandatory but voluntary. If they did not suit particular employment situations, then they did not have to occur. The second point is that the period would be 90 days for long-term contracts and 30 days for short-term contracts, casual work, seasonal work, and the like. That was an issue of major concern for many people. The third point is that the period of notice would actually go to the pay period, so people would not lose their job literally the next day. They would get a proper week’s pay, or 2 weeks’ pay, to ease the adjustment. I think that is only fair. The next point is a proper process of dispute resolution—a warning, mediation, and, I might add, all discrimination issues going through human rights procedures.

The amendments I have put forward are fair and balanced. I have listened to, and the amendments reflect, the submissions. I ask those parties that have questions to vote for the next stage in this process—for the bill to proceed to the Committee of the whole House. I will be tabling the amendments I have drafted. They fully reflect the amendments set out in the report back to the House.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I think that for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this was an interesting process. At the end of it we obviously had diverging views, but on a couple of issues there was agreement.

One area of agreement was that the existing provisions within the Act are not well-known and that they should be better advertised. We felt there should be more education on, and, quite frankly, more use of, the existing provisions within the law for probationary employment situations. I hope that happens, because I think that many employers are looking for an opportunity to have a probationary employment period for their new staff—but not, the Government believes, with a total removal of the rights of those workers, as this Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill would see.

The second thing we agreed on was what I think is a blight on the employment scene—that is, the advocates and lawyers out there who operate a sort of “no win, no pay” type situation. We should just have a look at that as a proposition. I know that some of the lawyers on the other side of the House are here to defend their mates, in good trade union fashion, and they will do so in their speeches as they did in the committee. But the primary remedy of the personal grievance procedure in our current law, and, as far as I am aware, through most of this country’s history, is reinstatement to the job. So if a person has been unfairly dismissed, that person should in fact be put back into the job.

But how would “no win, no fee” lawyers approach that as a proposition, because they would not get paid. They will not seek the primary remedy that at the end of the day is the most sensible thing, because it does not cost thousands of dollars for the employer, and because it does not inconvenience the worker who has been unfairly dismissed. I ask how that could happen in a “no win, no fee” situation in relation to advocates and lawyers—who have no place, in my view, in the industrial relations scene in this country. I think the research the committee has asked for will show that that has been a terrible blight on our industrial scene since it came in, in the Employment Contracts Act back in 1990.

I am not alone in this view; Roger Kerr agrees with me. The Business Roundtable says that these people are a blight. So it is not a left/right argument that we have here. It is just common sense that those sorts of parasites should not be in there doing damage to the employment scene, and many employers—and I agree—feel quite rightly that that process is an unfair imposition on them when it is done in that manner. We did agree as a committee on that.

However, we obviously did not agree on the rest. On the Labour side of the House we do not believe that workers who go into a new job should have all their rights removed for the first 90 days. But the member has now put up some amendments, because even his own supporters in the business community said that he had gone too far, and that what he had put up was absolutely over the top. He has made a last-minute effort to try to soften it, so let us have a look at that.

The Opposition continually goes on about compliance costs for employers. Well, could there be a more ridiculous compliance cost than this? Under Dr Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper—I think it is—that he just sought leave to put forward, an employee can force the employer to mediate on the decision to sack that employee. The employer can be forced to go to mediation, and actually sit there and engage in mediation as to why the employee was sacked. But then the employer has the absolute right to say he or she does not care. The employee might have a convincing argument, the employee might be right—the employee might have been unjustly treated by the employer—but the employer wins, because Wayne Mapp’s bill says that the employer wins every time. There is no argument; it is a case of “Sorry, you’re wrong, I’m right—because I’m the boss and you’re not.” So people will have to go through that if this type of change is made to the bill—what a ridiculous waste of time! Workers know that if the boss has sacked them and they have no rights under the law, they are definitely sacked.

So Dr Wayne Mapp has put up a bit of window dressing, because his own supporters have said that even though he went to university, got a law degree, and became a professor, he did not get this right. That is what the business community told him, and he has tried to soften it by pretending there can be mediation—but only one side gets to make the decision. That is not mediation; that is nonsense. Everybody in the world can see that for what it is—just a pathetic bit of whitewash.

We heard a whole lot of interesting arguments, but it is a real shame that the facts get in the way of those arguments. We heard that New Zealand was suffering on the employment front because we do not have probationary periods as they do in Germany, France, and the UK. So I looked at their unemployment figures compared with our unemployment figures, and can members guess who is winning? This country here, with a sensible probationary period, is streets ahead in terms of unemployment and in getting people into work. It is terrible how these facts get in the way of a good argument, but that is what we have heard constantly from the other side, and that is what we are hearing during this debate.

Employers have been coming along and saying that it is really hard to get people to come and work for them, and we have heard that also from the rural industries. Federated Farmers representatives said that they were really able to attract only the dregs. Well, I do not think they said those particular words, but they did say that they were getting only the hard end of the labour market—the people who nobody really wanted. Apparently, then, the big plan to attract better people is to say: “Come and work for me for the first 90 days. Uproot yourself from wherever you are in the country, and come here. And if I don’t like you after the first 90 days, you are gone.” Well, that is really going to help those industries that are struggling to attract staff! It gives people no security of employment, yet Federated Farmers said that every one of its members would do it. But the logic is just not there. If they cannot attract staff now, why will having a punitive arrangement like this in the law help them to attract new people into their workplaces? It is just beyond belief that people cannot figure this one through logically.

In New Zealand we know that we have a youth unemployment situation that is worse than our adult situation, but punishing people by urging them to go and work for employers who will get rid of them if the employers do not like them—get rid of them for even the most unjust reason—will not resolve issues with the hard end of the employment market. We know that the people getting those young people at the hard end of the employment market into work do it with mentoring programmes, with training, and with all sorts of incentives, but not with a big stick like this one. It does not work; it never will; it never has. That will be the same for Māori and Pacific youth as it will be for Pākehā.

The fact is that successful outcomes in youth employment that have been run by this Government have been about a much more progressive approach around mentoring. And that involves getting people up out of bed, picking up kids and taking them to work, visiting them at the workplace, and checking with the employer that things are going well. That is how we deal with the hard end of unemployment, that is what has been successful in New Zealand, but the National Party, jumping to the tune of its business mates, has said: “No, no, no. We’ll just make it easier to sack people, and that will increase employment for those people.” It is nonsense.

Most New Zealanders can see that this bill would affect everybody. The Opposition says no—that it will be only for young Māori and young Pacific people, and so on—but the people who came and made submissions said that it would affect us all. The average New Zealander now changes jobs about six times in a lifetime, and this legislation would mean that for six times 3 months spent in changing jobs employees would be without rights. That is just ridiculous. How does that encourage the teacher currently residing in Auckland who wants to go to do some rural service in Masterton—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Because it’s a voluntary agreement.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Well, that is not what the School Trustees Association said, was it, when it gave its submission—anything about voluntary? No, it was another group that came along and misrepresented its membership’s view, because I know that a lot of people who run schools are much brighter than that. They would not get people going into rural New Zealand after uprooting their families and selling their houses if those people did not have security of employment. We heard that from university professors, we heard that from teachers, we heard that from nurses—we heard that from all the people who have to be mobile around this country if our public service is to be the same in rural and provincial New Zealand as it is in the big cities. This legislation would wreck rural New Zealand. That lot over there have forgotten they are supposed to represent rural New Zealand. They just go along with a blind ideological piece of nonsense like this, and pretend it will make a difference.

We know that it would not make a difference. Our employment figures in New Zealand are the best—the best in the world. We get those figures on the basis of fairness, and justice, and good faith, but the National Party knows nothing about that.

PAULA BENNETT (National): I thought it was perhaps time that we dealt with some realities, and some realities for everyone—not the rhetoric, not the maybes, not the wishes, but actually some realities. I must pick up on one of Mr Gosche’s comments about unemployment being where it is, and I certainly agree that elements of those skill shortages cannot be ignored or underestimated, at all. But I ask the member to let us also not forget that, on average, 680 of those workers leave New Zealand permanently each week, and that is something we do not have in common with those other countries that have a probationary period.

Let us deal with some of the realities of what businesses, employees, and those who wish to get a job are actually working for. Before coming into Parliament I worked in the recruitment field, and on a daily basis dealt with businesses and those who were looking for a role. Some of them were looking for first-time roles, and some of them were looking for a change in employment, and I dealt with people from labour hire, through to middle and top management positions. So I was not dealing with just those at the upper level; I was dealing equally with those working in factories and, in labour hire, those doing all sorts of stuff.

I wonder whether Labour members have recently spoken to many new immigrants. Such immigrants were coming daily into our offices and asking for us to please get someone to give them a go.

Hon David Cunliffe: You don’t have an office.

PAULA BENNETT: I am talking about when I was in recruitment. When I was in my job we had people who daily—

Hon David Cunliffe: Ah!

PAULA BENNETT: When I was in my real job and working at it every day, we literally had new immigrants walking in and saying: “Could you please help us find that job and give us a go?”. From what we were hearing, they were not being given a fair go. That is certainly what we hear from Māori, it is certainly what we hear from young people, and it is certainly what we hear from Pacific Islanders. But this takes a change of attitude by employers, and I know that the Government is working on this, and we back the Government, because some of that does take.

Equally, it takes us to give them a chance. Those people were saying they would work for nothing for a few weeks and do whatever it takes to get in and actually prove themselves. Of course, that is illegal, and rightly so. We do not want the situation where people are not being paid for the work they do. But we need to loosen the law and make it easier for employers to take a risk with someone.

Let me deal with some of the realities. Businesses are currently struggling to get staff. There is a shortage of skilled workers and, for that matter, of unskilled workers, because people are leaving New Zealand at such a rate. They are leaving because of high taxes, and for a variety of other reasons such as not wishing to live under a socialist Government that is not fulfilling their needs. In reality, businesses cannot afford to have a revolving door for employees. They cannot afford to be churning people through. The Government put forward the concept that some employers would take people on and after 89 days flick them back out the door, without any reason given or those people having any rights.

Let us deal with some realities. Businesses cannot afford to do that. Businesses cannot afford to turn people over every 3 months—because of the training involved, because of the upset to the work environment, and because it does not work for them.

There is not a lot of room to move in business these days. Gone are the days of a nice little office environment where there was a secretary for every middle-manager, and above. Gone are the days when office juniors were walking through. Gone are the days when there was that level of employment in offices. We now live in a technological age, and fewer people are needed for that work. There is less fat in business, and one person does a lot more jobs than was the case 15 or 20 years ago.

So when businesses are looking to replace someone, or looking to fill a job, they are looking for someone with specific skills. When taking someone on, they say they can no longer give the person a year to get tuned into the environment, get used to the job, and actually do it. They need someone who is fairly quickly going to get up to speed and fill that gap. They then invest a lot of training in that person and invest money in what they do. We do not have that same number of employees. Of course, the Department of Labour might be an exception, which perhaps had 67 people who were paid $80,000 or more in 2002, and now has 255 people who are paid $80,000 or more. That is how in touch it is.

But now we are saying to employers they have to employ on aptitude and attitude. They can no longer employ purely on skill. That means taking a risk. They can no longer say they need someone who has experience in A, B, and C, and has worked in this environment, because those people are not out there any more. So they have to employ on aptitude and they have to employ on attitude. They have to believe that the person has the right attitude to be turning up each day, and have to believe that the person has the ability to learn. That is a damn sight riskier than it used to be.

So people need a chance to walk through the door and prove themselves. They need an opportunity to show they have that aptitude and attitude, because there is no test for those things and we do not always see it at an interview. And those people, as is shown in the statistics Mr Gosche was talking about, are the very ones who are not being given a shot at it They are not being given opportunities to get through the door, prove themselves, and then perhaps not only get that job but be promoted within the company. They might see opportunities grow considerably, not just for themselves but for their families, and their whole means turned round.

I want to talk briefly about the amendments put forward by Wayne Mapp. I think this is an indication of identifying that there was room to move, that we were not into taking rights off everybody, as has been claimed time and time again, but that people still have their human rights, as they quite rightly should, and that we were interested in evening things up and making sure it was a win for everyone.

We need to talk about who actually wins, under this bill, and who gets the opportunities to go further ahead and get their foot in the door. The Labour Government makes it sound as if National members were the big bad ones who would allow no rights for employees, and businesses would churn workers through every 3 months, and spit them out. Let us deal with some of the realities. The top companies that do well financially, as we well know, are the ones that best look after and support their employees.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Yes.

Lindsay Tisch: Dead right.

PAULA BENNETT: That is a fact. It is a fact for small business, for medium-sized business, and for big business. Those that would churn employees through every 3 months would not have a successful business, financially or otherwise. They know that, as well as anyone else does. They know that in this day of skill shortages they cannot just take employees on and train them up for a bit, and then spit them out 3 months later. Any smart business knows that that is not the way to do it, whether it is a small business or big business. Small businesses at the moment, with the compliance costs and the struggle they have to make it every week in business, are struggling more than anyone else. Yet the Labour Government thinks that business people are driving around in big cars, and have lots of money and are getting rich, The reality is that they are struggling more than anyone else.

The other ones who will be torn from this are businesses, like mechanics, that turn round and say they would give a young person a go, see whether there is an aptitude mechanically, and take the person on for a few months to see whether the person likes it and whether it works for him or her. But those businesses are not going to do that, and do not currently do that. These kids are not being given a go. That is something National was certainly looking at addressing in this bill that Dr Mapp has put forward.

I think he has addressed some of the concerns that were there. We look at the amendments that are going through, and I think there is every opportunity for us to have addressed some of the concerns that came through, except from those extreme people who were not willing to listen at all to any reason or the realities out there. Dr Mapp is looking at putting forward a very sensible amendment to reduce the period for seasonal or short-term employment. I also commend him for an amendment that clarifies the situation where someone has been working for the company on a temporary basis and is then employed on a permanent basis. That probation period should go back to the first day of work with the company. I say good on New Zealand First for raising that matter.

I am just so happy to stand up and speak in support of this bill. I certainly recommend it and think it is a great thing for New Zealand. It brings us in line with other OECD countries. I certainly put my vote forward for it.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): First of all, I want to acknowledge all the submitters. We had a very interesting select committee process, and it was good to hear their views. In particular, I want to acknowledge all the workers who rallied and marched against the bill, to remind this Parliament that more than business interests are involved when it comes to issues of employment.

I want to talk about some of the things that Dr Mapp said when he promoted the bill. He has promoted it as a silver bullet to deliver all kinds of wonderful things, such as helping workers find jobs for the first time and providing greater growth and productivity in the New Zealand economy.

He also said that we are one of only two countries in the OECD that does not have a probationary period. But when we examined this matter we found that many of those countries have far greater industrial regulation and workers’ protection than New Zealand. In fact, our industrial relations system remains one of the most deregulated in the Western World, and it is an extremely permissive environment.

Employers know—so do workers, actually—that already a range of employment practices allow employers to take risks, as some employer submitters said they wanted to be able to do when employing people. There are existing provisions for fixed-term agreements. There are existing provisions for probation periods—and I will come back to that. Workers can be hired as casuals and temporary workers. They can be hired through third-party agencies or as contractors. In fact, FinSec, the finance sector union, told us that around 25 percent of workers in the banking industry are employed as temporary workers. The bill would actually leave New Zealand workers with fewer rights than workers in many other OECD countries. Another reason given for the bill is that having a grievance-free period would enhance the employment of those less likely to find jobs, even though this bill would apply to all workers; it did not try to define just those whom some considered hopeless.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions took the unprecedented step of making a submission, based on its experience in Australia. It said that the full court of the Federal Court of Australia had examined the link between employment growth and access to unfair dismissal remedies. The Australian Government’s expert witness admitted that there is no empirical research to support the view that excluding classes of employees will result in higher employment. The court held that the suggestion of a relationship between unfair dismissal laws and employment inhibition is unproven, and entirely a matter for speculation. In any case, one does not deal with this issue, or with problems like this, by removing fundamental rights and giving all workers less protection. Two young workers, Jessie and Oliver, who came along to the select committee, asked how we can expect young people to be committed to work when they are treated as though they are disposable.

Another assumption is that the termination of employment within the first 3 months is unduly costly and time consuming, and that probationary employees, under the current law, are entitled to an undue level of protection—which they are not. Current legislation requires that the agreement must be in writing, and that dismissal cannot occur simply because of the trial period coming to an end. That is fair. In other words, employers have to manage. If they have concerns, they have to convey them to the worker, provide an appropriate opportunity for the worker to comment and improve his or her performance, and consider the worker’s explanation fairly.

I am also unaware that there is any evidence of a multitude of workers taking personal grievance claims within the first 90 days of employment. Even the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) admitted that personal grievance cases taken in the first few months of employment are rare. What struck me about many of the employers’ submissions was their lack of knowledge about current probationary requirements, and their impatience with the requirement to be a fair and reasonable employer. In my former job I was the employer of 75 staff, so I am well aware of the responsibilities that employers have under the law. Yes, it can be inconvenient and time consuming, but workers should not be deprived of their economic livelihood easily and frivolously, and these are important decisions that impact on people’s lives.

Current probationary requirements mean that an employer cannot simply leave a worker to his or her own devices in a job, then assert after 90 days that the worker is not suited to the job and sack the worker. Caritas, the social justice arm of the Catholic church, put it well in its submission when it said that working relationships do not break down only because of a fault on the part of the employee. This bill assumes that the fault is always on the part of the employee. Business New Zealand suggested that probationary employment guidelines be introduced, including the need for regular supervision and feedback during probationary periods, and I believe that the recommendation of the majority of the select committee—that more be done to promote awareness and the effective utilisation of section 67 of the Employment Relations Act—is a constructive way forward.

Some of the concerns from union submissions that particularly struck me were those representing workers in highly dangerous industries. The Rail and Maritime Transport Union said that workers must be confident that they can speak out about unsafe work practices, especially in the rail industry with its inherently hazardous tasks. It is a fact that workers are far more likely to have accidents in the early days of a new job.

Other submitters said that the bill would foster negative workplace cultures. Workers under the threat of instant dismissal would be more likely to be reluctant to provide feedback, criticise unacceptable practices, or otherwise involve themselves in the workplace. They would be placed under pressure to conform to the workplace culture, and in so doing could, ironically, be identified by the employer as being not suitable, or as not fitting into the culture, by not showing initiative or energetic ideas.

Cheryl Chester-Dixon, who works with challenging behaviour in disability support services, talked about the small workplaces she works in, with inexperienced supervisors and a high turnover of staff and supervisors. In a high-stress industry, Cheryl believes that instead of sorting things out, employers in small workplaces like hers, who are busy, are just going to say that they have had enough and send workers down the road.

The Dairy Workers Union talked about its co-partnership with Fonterra and the major productivity initiative called Manufacturing Excellence, and about how any action by this Parliament or the employer to reduce employment rights is viewed by the unionised workforce of Fonterra as an attack on them. Any attack on employment rights undermines the framework by which workers constructively engage for productivity and economic development. They then become suspicious that all this Parliament cares about is economic growth for the few, not economic growth to be shared by all. The union’s submission states: “We should be supporting the drive for excellence in our companies and exporters by ensuring that the employment relations framework contributes to employment security rather than detracting from it.”

Some of my colleagues have already mentioned a genuine concern that came through the submissions. This was the activities of the so-called ambulance chasers—those advocates who conduct personal grievance cases on the basis of a “no win, no fee” arrangement. Although there is anecdotal evidence only about this problem, stories have tended to grow in mythology and in the employer community. But I do accept there are some genuine cases of frivolous claims being taken against employers to obtain a financial settlement. The select committee has recommended that there be further research into those arrangements, the impact on personal grievance claims, and any initiatives that might address the issue.

Finally, I acknowledge Dr Mapp’s tenacity in pursing his bill and his endeavours to find solutions, albeit ones that no one on this side of the House can agree with. I also note his statement that this is the No. 1 issue on National’s agenda for changes to employment law. It is helpful to have that statement, in order to remind all the workers who protested, rallied, and made submissions that, if given the chance, the National Party will relentlessly pursue the removal of basic workers’ rights.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to participate in the second reading of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by Dr Wayne Mapp. I also stand on behalf of my colleague Peter Brown, who was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and who is our party’s spokesperson on such matters.

First of all, New Zealand First gave serious consideration to this bill. In fact, part of that consideration was that we supported it on its first reading so that it could go to a select committee, even though we had concerns about it. I ought to say that our first opinion of the bill has certainly not changed. My colleague described it as being draconian, although it was promoted as helping people into jobs.

We are not quite sure whether that was in fact the case, but we recognise Dr Mapp’s attempt during the select committee deliberation to amend the bill along the lines that New Zealand First advocated. He suggested some amendments to address the concerns of many of us, and during that process New Zealand First supported the amendments. Nevertheless, they were defeated at the select committee, and all I need to say is that I respect the decision of the select committee. The bill would have required further amending if it were to go any further but, quite clearly, there did not seem to be any political support for the bill.

I say to this House that New Zealand First has met with the Minister; I suppose that is part of the baubles of power that people keep reminding my leader about. We discussed with the Minister some of the issues that were raised during the select committee hearing. The Minister has agreed to address the problem of employment organisations that take on frivolous personal grievance claims against employers on a “no win, no fee” basis. The Minister has also agreed to instigate a campaign to educate employers, in regard to the current legislation that provides for probationary periods in an employment agreement. Quite clearly—and this was alluded to by one of the speakers from the Government—many small employers are unaware of the current legislation. I refer specifically to clause 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The Minister has also agreed to an inquiry into casualised employment, with the intention of putting some rules in place to ensure fairness. The inquiry will be headed by a suitably qualified independent person. Negotiations between the Government and New Zealand First are ongoing, and we expect them to be finalised so that the Minister will be in a position to announce full details in the first half of 2007. That particular inquiry will certainly address the concern that New Zealand First has in relation to casualisation.

I will not take up any more of the time allocated to our party, other than to say that New Zealand First has decided not to support this bill going any further.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party is absolutely delighted with the statement made by Mr Pita Paraone just now, and that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended that the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill not proceed. We understand that with Mr Paraone’s assistance there are sufficient votes in the House to make sure the bill does not go any further today.

This bill is a disgrace, harking back as it does to the National Party’s infamous approach to industrial relations, epitomised by the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. I am sure that if Dr Mapp succeeds with this bill, tonight he and his colleagues will be celebrating the first step towards achieving a renewed attack on the rights of workers. I am very glad that the number of MPs who have seen the reality of what is intended by the bill is sufficient to ensure it does not survive past this afternoon.

Although Dr Mapp’s motives are, on the surface, quite laudable—for example, his avowed desire to help young people and the long-term unemployed get a foothold in the workforce—the real danger lies in what lurks below the surface. Under the bill as introduced by Dr Mapp, employees during their first 89 days on the job would have none of the protections offered them by the current Employment Relations Act. The employer could sack the new worker at will and without notice. Dr Mapp and his supporters have said that the proposed 3-month probationary period would mean that employers who are traditionally reluctant to take on people without a good employment record, or without any employment history at all, would be much more willing to take the risk of doing so.

There are grave fallacies in that argument, and with the bill itself. Dr Mapp has assumed that employers are reluctant to take on those less desirable in the labour market, unless they can do so on a trial basis, without the protections of the Employment Relations Act. He and his supporters believe that a 90-day probationary period for all new employees would allow employers time to work out whether a new worker is suitable for the job without risking costly and drawn-out personal grievance procedures. Dr Mapp has often gone on to say that the 90-day rule would therefore help the most disenfranchised parts of the workforce—such as young people, Māori, Pasifika peoples, and migrants and refugees—as there would be less of a barrier to their employability. In contrast, the Green Party believes that it would, in fact, be those parts of the labour market who would suffer the most as a result of this bill going through, achieving quite the opposite of Dr Mapp’s professed intentions.

Should this bill succeed, it will strip those so-called risky employees of their legal protections. Such workers could potentially number in the hundreds of thousands each year. As one commentator noted in June, with almost 2 million people in our workforce at present and with every worker changing jobs an average of six times in their lifetime—often more—National’s bill could mean 300,000 workers without any rights at any given moment. Another way of looking at it is that all of us could face an average of 1 to 1½ years of our working lives without the legal protections enjoyed by everyone else.

Dr Mapp and others argue that probationary periods will increase productivity, but, again, the Green Party believes that they will have absolutely the opposite effect. Insecure, low-status workers tend to be less, not more, productive than their colleagues. Insecurity breeds mistrust and fear, not loyalty and commitment. Human resources professionals and business advisers spend a lot of their lives trying to train managers in the art of being a good employer. Does Dr Mapp not realise that his bill would in fact undermine all their efforts? Undervaluing and disrespecting one’s employees by seeing them as a high-turnover, low-cost commodity instead of honoured contributors to the business is an almost certain recipe for problems in working relationships, whether the business is large or small. We here in Parliament should be doing everything we can to encourage respectful relationships based on the kinds of principles outlined in the Employment Relations Act, not racing backwards to the future by eliminating rights at work for hundreds of thousands of people at a time.

Beyond questions of fairness, sound workplace management practices, and basic human rights, this bill is simply not necessary at all, if what Dr Mapp is really seeking to do is to allow employers the option of using probationary periods in some limited circumstances. As I pointed out in my first reading speech—and as many submitters and the Government have said, over and over again, as well—the Employment Relations Act already has provisions for probationary periods for new workers, and has had since 2000. Dr Mapp has said that if his bill were to pass the second reading stage, he has a number of amendments he would like to put up. I have not had a chance to look at these amendments before this afternoon, but we in the Green Party will continue to stick to the basic principle that all those in employment, not just some, deserve the protections offered by the Employment Relations Act.

Even if Dr Mapp were to amend the bill by restricting 90-day probationary periods only to those in their first job—and I do not think that is what his amendments propose—I would continue to reiterate the very clear position put up in my own member’s bill to get rid of the lower minimum wage for young workers: that under-18-year-olds deserve exactly the same protections at work as the rest of us. Equal pay for equal work is a well-established principle in this country when we consider matters of ethnicity and gender, but, sadly, it is still not the case when it comes to age. So many people in their first job are in that younger age group.

I would hate to see the concept of the probationary period slipped in, either through amendments to this legislation or through changes to my own Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, which some employers and others have suggested recently. All employed workers deserve to be treated with equity in wages, conditions, and statutory protections, not discriminated against on the basis of age and/or on the principle of how long they have been in the job. The bill we are dealing with today is really about stripping away the employment rights of the most vulnerable workers in the country. If it goes through, workers in high-skill, high-demand occupations, perhaps like some of those Paula Bennett talked about, would not have been affected, as she rightly said. For those types of positions, in the current labour market the new hire can usually hold his or her own in any negotiation with the employer. Instead, this bill would have created huge damage for those who are already most at risk: the young, the unemployed, Māori, Pasifika people, and refugee and migrant workers.

I especially acknowledge the Māori Party MPs, who went through a difficult process of their own in coming to a decision on this legislation. Along with my fellow Green MPs, I tautoko their ability and willingness to listen to the voices of so many of their own people, who have been saying loudly and clearly that despite the bill appearing on the surface to assist with overcoming Māori unemployment, in fact it would make things a lot worse for those workers.

The Labour Party must listen to the genuine concerns of the Māori Party, and of the Green Party, about the ongoing high rates of Māori unemployment. The answers to high jobless rates among tangata whenua and others lie elsewhere than in this bill. Minimum wages and conditions should be higher so that people who are living in endemic long-term poverty can more easily make the transition from welfare to work. The Job-plus subsidy should be expanded and, at a time of comparatively low unemployment, I think we should also be looking again at things like updated versions of the old Work Skills Development Programme for some people. There should be more Government support for local economic development, job creation, and small business assistance in regions of high unemployment. We should not be creating no-go zones for the unemployed or trucking them 120 kilometres a day to do temporary work in places like Tai Rāwhiti. Instead, we should be localising economies so that rural and provincial areas are nurtured back to life rather than “hollowed out”, in the fashionable jargon of today’s economic discourse. A high skill, high value economy will not be accomplished by plunging all, or even some, new employees into 3 months of total uncertainty whereby new employers can drop them like a hot cake with no reason on their part and with no recourse on the employees’ part.

Most of all, I congratulate all the individuals, unions, and church and community organisations who took part in meetings, marches, rallies, and pickets in the campaign against this bill. They knew that it was not enough just to sit quietly by and hope the bill would be defeated within the parliamentary precincts. MPs needed to hear the strength of their voices and their actions, and we did—wind, rain, and Boobs on Bikes inclusive. The Green Party joins them today in welcoming the demise of this ill-conceived, anti-worker bill. We look forward to continuing to work with them on somewhat more constructive issues in the months and years ahead.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the gallery that no contributions can be made from the gallery without prior permission being given by the Speaker. Any contribution made without authority is an interruption of the House and will be treated as contempt. That means that no noise at all is to come from the gallery.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare, tēnā koutou e te whānau o ngā kaimahi. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us in the House, and the family of workers. Good health to us all.]

Some bills come up at just the right time, and this is one of them. This week marks the anniversary of the death of Sojourner Truth, the famous anti-slavery activist. Indeed, in the United States November is designated as truth month, and in Michigan there is even a Sojourner Truth day coming up on Sunday. But I have no doubt that all these were facts that completely bypassed my colleague Dr Mapp in bringing the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill back to the House. If the name “Sojourner” sounds familiar, it is because in 1995 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration named the Mars Pathfinder rover Sojourner, in honour of Sojourner Truth’s birth some 200 years ago.

Sojourner Truth was born into slavery and became the property of four more owners before she finally marched to freedom in 1826. From that time on she travelled the land, preaching the truth and working against injustice. According to the stories, everywhere Sojourner Truth spoke she made a lasting impression. It could have been because she was over 6 feet tall and had a powerful and booming voice, but it was probably also because of the power of her message. She was a seeker of truth, a fighter for human rights, and a campaigner against injustice.

So what can Sojourner Truth possibly have to do with Wayne Mapp and this bill? It is simple. In this truth month we look to her legacy as another example of the inspiration so many black activists have given to indigenous people about how to tackle systemic bias, and how to fight institutional racism, in order to effect change. Truth No. 1 asks: is the probationary period necessary?

Dr Wayne Mapp: Yes.

HONE HARAWIRA: Well—yes? This bill proposes the introduction of a 90-day probation period during which prospective new employees will be assessed by their employers. It is something employers have been gassing about for years. But in fact current legislation already provides for probationary periods. The problem, therefore, seems to be that employers simply do not know that those provisions are there—a problem that could easily be fixed by better employer education and workplace communication, not by a new bill. The solution would seem to lie in better informing employers about how to use the provisions; a “How to read the Act” kind of brochure might be a good outcome from this bill.

Truth No. 2—not—is that the introduction of a probationary period will address Māori unemployment. The Māori Party copped a fair bit of flak for our decision to support the referral of this bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Our people simply could not understand why we were having any truck with it, at all. But our motives were clear: our role as a party is to defend Māori rights and to advance Māori interests for the benefit of the whole nation. But it is also our responsibility to get the best possible information on which to make our decisions, so we referred the bill to the select committee to hear submissions on it. We wanted to hear the views of Māori workers, Māori employers, Māori unemployed, and their whānau, about things like how to address the situation of generations of Māori unemployment, how to deal with the massive gaps between Māori and non-Māori incomes, and how to deal with institutional racism.

We were disappointed with the truths that came back from the select committee. There was simply no evidence at all to support the claim that removing workers’ rights would increase Māori employment. We were open to the possibility that there might be benefits in taking a chance, but in the end we were not prepared to support the wiping out of rights built up over generations on the off chance that it might work. As my co-leader Tariana Turia said last week, in the context of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2), despite comparable academic qualifications or skill levels, Māori are still being subjected to bias from employers. The truth is that in this new millennium Māori are still being employed less often and paid less money than any other New Zealanders, and the Mapp bill will do nothing to change the persistent racism of that reality.

The multiple causes of Māori unemployment would be far better addressed through initiatives around job skills, training, mentoring, education, better wages, regional and rural employment programmes, and eliminating racism from the workplace.

Hon Member: Becoming employers.

HONE HARAWIRA: Pēnei i a tāua. [Like you and me.]

Truth No. 3—not—is that the bill will encourage employers to take a chance with new employees without facing the risk of personal grievance procedures. The Māori Party is prepared to look at anything to improve Māori opportunities for employment, but this bill simply does not do it. I know that, because I have been an employer for the last 20 years in Kaitāia, and I have not needed to do this kind of thing to bring people off the unemployment register and into my workplace. Employers simply make a decision that they are going to do it, and then they go ahead and do it. They do not need this bill to make that happen. The decision is in the hearts of employers. If they choose not to do it, they ain’t going to do it. Sure, employers may take a chance, but they also take advantage by having the right to dismiss workers rather than invest in them.

There were heaps of submissions about the fears that workers have, particularly in respect of those already vulnerable to racism, those unaware of their rights, and those who could drop back to casual employment, because once they are out the door they have to stand down for anywhere between 13 and 26 weeks before they can get the dole. Then they are back on the cycle of unemployment, and the treadmill of shame and humiliation. Submissions also noted the lack of evidence to back up the argument that probationary periods actually result in employers offering jobs to those less likely or less able to find employment. That just does not happen.

Truth No. 4 asserts that the bill will not create a grievance industry. The age-old argument about so-called grievance industries always gets pulled out when an argument is losing ground. Treaty settlements are well tarred with this brush, but the truth is that grievances did occur again and again, no matter how much the thief, who happened to be the Government, the policemen, who happened to be the Government, the judges, who happened to be the Government, or the juries, who happened to be the Government as well, might seek to diminish that reality. Treaty settlements are not a grievance industry. The Treaty settlement process is a lifelong commitment to righting wrongs and to seeking justice for those generations yet to come.

In this bill, too, the myth of the grievance industry is simply an outright lie. In 2004 only 0.5 percent—that is, half a percent—of workers even applied for mediation, and even fewer took it any further. So perhaps we should be looking to ensure that employers treat their employees properly rather than being afraid of personal grievances arising—which is hardly ever. The other point, of course, is that personal grievances are neither expensive nor drawn out—

Jacqui Dean: Oh!

HONE HARAWIRA: Well, these just happen to be facts that I am using here. In 2004, 83 percent of the so-called urgent cases referred to mediation were dealt with in 15 days, and 93 percent within 3 months—I am sorry for using facts. In fact, only 20 percent of those cases—0.1 percent; which is about as close to zero one can get—actually ended up before the Employment Relations Authority. So much for the grievance argument!

Truth No. 5 asserts that workers’ rights will remain unscathed. It has also been noted by many submitters that the intention to waive workers’ rights through this bill is actually in breach of both the Employment Relations Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Māori Party upholds provisions of fairness, good faith, fair treatment, and high regard as the basis for employment law. The right to work, and workers’ rights, must all be upheld in a way that protects workers and allows sufficient flexibility for employers.

Like Sojourner Truth, our journey with this bill has not been an easy one, but in the end our commitment to upholding fundamental human rights was a driving force in our decision. We simply could not support removing the right to mediation and dropping the right to appeal bad decisions. The Māori Party supports the right for everyone in Aotearoa to take a chance, but the risks we would be taking in letting this particular rocket fly are simply too great to be acceptable, and for all these reasons the Māori Party will be happily voting against this bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future is totally committed to doing all we can to ensure that as many New Zealanders as possible have a job. Earlier Mark Gosche commented that the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, etc. have probationary periods in their law, but also have higher rates of unemployment than New Zealand. I would like to say that it is rather cold comfort to people who are endeavouring to find a job, and who for a long time have been unable to work in New Zealand, to know that they are, at least, better off than people in Germany. I suppose they are, in that sense, but it is still very, very cold comfort. That is why United Future, in our election policy in 2005, suggested that there was a useful place in New Zealand employment law for a probationary period.

I want to tell members why we believe that a probationary period is important. We see it as being important for four different categories of people who, at the moment, find it very, very difficult to get into a job.

The first category is people getting their first job. I have been with a number of young people who have been endeavouring to get their first job, and I have experienced firsthand how difficult that can be for many of them. They tend to pick up the Dominion Post on a Saturday, with its employment supplement that has 640 jobs, or something of that sort. They go away with their hopes up that somewhere amongst those 640 jobs there will be one that they can apply for. They come back to me and say: “Well, I’ve isolated about 15 jobs that I think I could do, but in every single case the advertisement states ‘experience required’.” One has to ask how someone looking for a first job can have experience; obviously, that person has no experience. We feel it is important to allow those people to have an opportunity to overcome that problem. I will come in a moment to why employers insist in their advertisements that they require people who have experience, and how a probationary period might help that.

The second group of people we have in mind are people who are re-entering the workforce having undertaken courses for drug and alcohol treatment. These people are a very, very high-risk group of people when it comes to getting back into the workforce. If they are honest when the employer asks: “What having you been doing for the last 6 months?”, they say: “I have been in a rehabilitation programme.” Very often, when they get to that point in the conversation the interview is immediately terminated; that is the experience many of them have.

The third group, whom I think are in an even more difficult position, is prisoners who are coming back into the workforce having done their time in prison and, therefore, having paid society their dues in respect of their criminal activity and the like. A number of wonderful organisations in this country specialise in trying to rehabilitate these men—normally they are men; there are very few women in our prisons, thank God. Nothing is more important in that process than being able to get those people a job. I have met with people from several of those organisations, and they have told me it is extremely difficult to get those people back into work, because the employer says: “Look, you’re just too risky.”

The fourth group of people we have in mind are new immigrants and refugees. Again, I have personally spent time with those groups, and the people who work with those groups, and I know the great difficulty they have in getting their first job in New Zealand. That is particularly the case for people who have relatively poor English language skills. They have a tremendous struggle getting their first job in this country, sometimes to the point of their feeling total despair because no one is prepared to risk taking them on.

That is what this bill is trying to address. How do we mitigate the risk? How do we get an employer to take a risk with this people? It is not made any easier by the fact that a number of the employers, as they have told me, have taken risks with people in those four categories I have mentioned, only to find that 2, 3, 4, or 5 days or weeks after they start a job they simply one day do not turn up. That illustrates the fact that our present arrangements are kind of one-sided. We have a contract of employment between employee and employer, but if the employee opts out, he or she can walk away and that is the end of the matter. There is no come-back at all for the employer. It is unfortunate, because those people—and there are not many of them; I am not saying it is a big problem—make it more difficult for people who really want to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay to get into the workforce.

United Future members believe that there is a risk involved from an employer’s point of view when he or she evaluates the situation and asks: “Am I prepared to take this person on?”. Therefore we believe, as does Dr Wayne Mapp, that it is important to address that reality and do something about it, rather than sit here with our hands folded, as it were, and say that we are not prepared to address this issue. Because if we do not address this issue, the reality is that it will continue.

Something else really, really disappoints me about the debate that we have had so far on this bill. I have noticed a tendency coming up more and more in this Parliament, and I think it is very disappointing, and it is this. Wayne Mapp comes up with a bill. It gets through its first reading, it goes to a select committee, submitters come along, and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee produces a report, which states the reasons why the bill should not proceed—breach of human rights, overturning of employment law, etc. They are all listed on pages 3 to 5 of the report. Wayne Mapp listens to those submitters and he alters his bill.

How has he attempted to amend his bill? Let us look at what Wayne Mapp has put before Parliament. He is saying we should give this bill a second reading so that it can go to the Committee of the whole House, and he will put amendments to change what was originally put before this House to something different. Yet speech after speech so far from the opponents of this bill have referred to the bill as submitted. I think that is lazy and, in a sense, kind of dishonest.

So let us look at what Wayne Mapp proposes. First of all, he said probationary periods would be by agreement between the two parties. They will not apply to every job; they will not apply to everybody. We heard from Sue Bradford that they will apply to hundreds of thousands of people. That is a nonsense. They will apply to a particular situation whereby the parties themselves agree to them. They will apply to the sorts of people I am talking about who want their first job, or want to get back into the workforce after prison or rehabilitation, or have come to New Zealand as immigrants, or whatever. Those employees are happy to be taken on, on the basis that if it does not work out they will not be able to take a personal grievance against their employer.

Wayne Mapp has a specific amendment about this, and it is worth reading it out: “For the avoidance of doubt all issues other than personal grievances, including arrears of pay, discrimination under the Human Rights Act and issues arising from health and safety can be subject to proceedings under this Act.” In other words, there would no loss of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or under the Human Rights Act in relation to this bill, if it were amended by Dr Wayne Mapp’s amendments. But here is the rub: Parliament will never even debate these amendments. No, we have made our minds up, and we do not want to be confused with facts or amendments—this is a dead loss!

Hone Harawira said we cannot do this because it might be risky. I ask Hone how will we ever know—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please use the member’s full name.

GORDON COPELAND: —if we do not do it. Suppose the bill were successful in getting a lot more Māori into employment—would that not be worth it? Unfortunately, we will never know, because you are not actually prepared to give it a go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

GORDON COPELAND: I want to say, on behalf of United Future, that I am disappointed that this bill will not go to the Committee of the whole House, and that we will not be able to look at sensible amendments. That is what we should be doing as a responsible Parliament. Obviously, with that in mind, United Future will be voting in favour of the bill at its second reading. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was actually a very good speech, Gordon, and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know that the member is new, but he must use the member’s full name all the time.

DAVID BENNETT: That was a very good speech from the member from United Future. One thing that has come out of this process for us has been our disappointment in respect of what this Parliament is about. This is not a Parliament that listens to points of view and comes up with constructive solutions; it is a Parliament based on party political lines. That approach seems to be essentially what we have seen today from Labour and New Zealand First, and unfortunately the Māori Party has joined in with it today.

I would like to thank Wayne Mapp for bringing together very good legislation. I tell members that they will see this legislation passed in this Parliament in 2 years’ time, if not sooner. This legislation will go down in the history of New Zealand as being the first step in putting us back on the right track—the track to growth and prosperity that this Government has collapsed.

I thank the submitters to this legislation; they did a great job. I also thank the staff who worked on the bill. Mr Gosche said that what happened here today happened “in good trade union fashion”. Well, that is right, because one message that came out of what members saw from Labour in this process was that it was doing what it had to do to pay back the election debts it owed to the trade unions. Labour members sat in the select committee room and saw people coming in, one after another, and heard them saying that this bill was good for New Zealand. What did those members do? They turned a blind eye and just waited for the unions to come in. And what did the unions say? The unions said: “That’s what Labour does.” Labour did exactly what the unions told them to do—nothing more, nothing less.

Unions said, in respect of employers, that the bill would end up setting a very, very low standard of employer conduct. The unions and Labour have no faith in New Zealand employers. Let it go down in history that the unions and Labour do not trust the people who make the money in this country. They do not trust employers to act respectfully, and in the best interests of New Zealanders and their employees. They will not give the people of New Zealand who set up businesses and take some risks, any kind of reward. They will not give them any respect. They say it is all about employees.

They also say that New Zealand has forgotten rural New Zealand, and that farm workers are the dregs among employees. Well, that is a “John Kerry” comment if ever I heard one. Those people are out there milking cows and making money so you can sit in here—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. When a member uses the word “you”, he or she is referring to the Speaker.

DAVID BENNETT: Then we come to New Zealand First, whose members are sitting there smugly, and smiling away in this Parliament. New Zealand First’s member could not even turn up to this debate. Why did he not turn up? It was because he knew that it would be unconscionable for him to do so.

Darren Hughes: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. The member cannot refer to the absence of any members from the House, because all members, at one stage or another, will be away on urgent public business, as that member will be.

DAVID BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I did not mention any names.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It does not matter.

DAVID BENNETT: Also, in the first reading debate New Zealand First members said that their support of the bill was conditional on getting the casualisation issue sorted out. Well, we sorted the casualisation issue out, yet they still will not vote for the bill. The reason New Zealand First members will not vote for the bill is that they are in coalition with Labour, and they cannot afford to do anything that would upset it. It is about the baubles of power, which means that whatever comes up they will do what they are told—that is the reality of this country.

Then we heard the great unemployment argument from Labour members; they said that unemployment was so low. Well, you tell that to the 0.2 percent of people who were put out of a job, as measured in the last unemployment statistics, how great it is, and you tell—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has been warned.

DAVID BENNETT: —those 0.2 percent of people, unemployed within the last 6 months up to March, what a fine economy we have!

The reality is that New Zealand has been growing strongly in the last 6 years because of what National set up in the 1990s. But what we are seeing now is a strangulation of this country by that Government—they are strangling us. Our growth is low, and our unemployment rate will go through the roof, and that is what happens if there are Labour policies when we are trying to grow a modern economy.

We were also told, in a Māori Party speech, about the death of a great world leader. That may be true, but this month there was the death of another great person, Milton Friedman. He would die if he knew what was happening in this Parliament today, and that some people could actually ignore great legislation like this that would have made economic policy what it should be.

This Government is dominated by unionists who are following their communistic followings and beliefs. It is a Government that believes it knows what is best for New Zealanders. It will not even let you employ someone in this country without putting its thumb over you. It knows exactly what everyone should be doing all the time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. I have informed the member several times about the use of the word “you”. Every time the member uses that word, he is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “that member”—that is, in the third person. The member should not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a bit of a difficulty here, because the speech that has been written for the member has clearly been typed out, and it is difficult—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member will be seated. There is no need to bring that sort of issue into it.

DAVID BENNETT: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I will decide on that. The member will be seated. I now call the honourable member David Bennett.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been in this House for a little while, and it is the usual practice, when a member has taken offence, that the other member is required to withdraw and apologise. In the circumstances, when a point of order is used in an abusive fashion, like that of the junior Labour whip, I think Mr Bennett is perfectly entitled to take offence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The member is right, in that he has been around here for a little while, but I fail to see—[Interruption] I am speaking to a point of order, and the member is interjecting, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He has obviously not been around all that long. Mr Mapp indicated that Mr Hughes had somehow said something that was abusive. I invite him, or you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to advise us what that abusive term was, because I did not hear any abuse from Mr Hughes, at all. He raised a point of order, and whether—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Cosgrove. I sat both members down. I will move on from this now. The reality is that I am calling the honourable member David Bennett. That was a debatable issue.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague David Bennett was offended by a comment made by the junior Government whip. For the clarification of the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, who said he did not know what my colleague objected to. I tell him that Mr Bennett objected to the fact that Mr Hughes said that his speech had been written and typed out by someone—which is not the case. My colleague is offended and, under Standing Order 116, has taken offence. He is asking for the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have dwelt on this problem long enough, and only if warranted does a remark need to be withdrawn. In my opinion the remark does not need to be withdrawn. It is not a personal reflection; it is a debatable issue. I now wish to move on. There is no rule now against reading speeches, as there once was.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the issues I raised was the way that the junior Government whip, who is well able to know better because he is sitting in that position, deliberately used the point of order process in a way that he knows is abusive—in the sense that he knew it was not a point of order—to break up the speech. It is for that as much as for anything else that he needs to withdraw and apologise. It was a blatant misuse of the point of order procedure, and the member well knew that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. I am going to move on. There are instances across this Chamber—and there have been one or two at least from that side today—where a similar thing has happened with a frivolous interjection. The member has been warned about frivolous interjections, and there the matter rests. I have made my decision.

DAVID BENNETT: That member, with the lowest majority in this Parliament, who will certainly not be back having a seat here next time, could neither read nor write a speech. So that would be of little benefit to him, would it not?

In relation to the issue of fundamental rights for employers, I say that there have to be some rights for employers these days, not just for employees. We cannot have just a one-sided employment relationship. When we look at personal grievance claims, we can see there is a reason why there are not very many, and a reason why there are very, very few within the first 3 months. Employers will just not go through the process; they would rather pay employees off. We had story after story in our select committee about how employers would rather pay off employees with $10,000 or $15,000, than pay $20,000 to go to a lawyer and go through the courts. That is why the statistics are not there. The reality is that it happens day and night in the marketplace, and we need to be out there, supporting both sides of the argument.

Darren Hughes: Supporting both sides of the argument?

DAVID BENNETT: When we say “both sides of the argument”, we mean we see it from both sides—employers and employees—because this legislation will help employers, which is part of Labour’s agenda for an incremental approach to labour law. Since Labour has been in Government, those members have had pieces of legislation come in one after another, all of them incrementally ratcheting up the rights of employees and taking away the rights of employers. This bill brings some balance to the arrangement, and that is what we are talking about in this legislation.

Darren Hughes: What a great speaker.

DAVID BENNETT: Some great things were said in that select committee, as well—which the member with the lowest majority in the House would not have heard about—such as that we would be looking at the employment of those who are most disadvantaged: migrants, young people, Māori, and people who are coming back from long-time unemployment. They are the people who are most in need of a chance, and this legislation would give those people the greatest chance to go forward.

This legislation would also bring us into line with other OECD countries. We are the only country that does not have such legislation.

There are other points we need to look at, as well. The Government’s Small Business Advisory Group said that this was the biggest thing the Government could do, and Treasury backed it up. But what did the Government do? It ignored that group. It set up an advisory group and asked for the group’s response. The group gave the Government its response and said that this legislation was what we needed—and then the Government ignored that. The Government said that it was too hard and that it would not do it.

There is also the idea of rolling employees: people who are constantly fired after 89 days. Well, that is simply not conscionable in the modern economic environment. It is hard to get staff out there. Employers will not go out there and fire people every 89 days, retrain them—which would take longer than 89 days, in most cases—and then fire them, hire them, and retrain them. Employers will just not do that. It makes no sense, and employers will not do it.

In fact, if there was one thing that employers told us, it was that they will not take on anyone now. They would rather close up their businesses and go to Australia than have this situation. I was rung up by one of the biggest employers in Hamilton, and he will be prepared to close his business if we do not pass this legislation. That is the shame of this Government—it is killing this country.

We are killing off the initiative and personal ambition of young New Zealanders, as well. What is the matter with someone going knocking on somebody’s door, asking to be given a chance? Most of us have had to do that at some stage, and we are very grateful that people gave us that chance. But we cannot have that option now; there are too many rules and regulations. Employers know that they cannot take a risk, because they could get caned in the courts or in the public eye if they did so. So they are not willing to do that, and the people who are missing out are the people who need the most help. That is a true disgrace for this country, for this Parliament, and for the Labour - New Zealand First Government that supports the denial of this legislation.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): That speech was from the member who happily ate the chicken drumsticks from the New Zealand Public Service Association in Hamilton, never letting on to them for one minute his views on this particular issue, but that is nothing new. I hope that people in Hamilton were listening to the diatribe from that member, who said that he was portraying an issue that came forward from a Hamilton business person. Where was that submission before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee? It certainly was not heard before the select committee, but there were very, very fine submissions that were heard by the select committee. I congratulate those people who felt strongly enough about this issue to come and put their views forward before the select committee.

It is an interesting time to be debating this Employment Relations (Probationary Period) Amendment Bill, because over the last 24 hours we have learnt that many of National’s policies are hidden from public view. Well, here is one that is up for consumption by the general public, and the public really should know about this. I hope that a lot of people are listening and taking note that when it comes to National Party policy, this is the sort of thing that National members come up with. Here is the sort of thing that they want to promote—and it is taking away workers’ rights.

The issues that are in front of the business community in this country at the moment are around not being able to get the appropriately skilled person in the right place, at the right time. What is the National Party’s answer to that? National members came up with this intelligent legislation—not! It is not intelligent legislation—that says to the business community: “We know how to resolve your skills shortage problem. We will just let you give less job security to those people who want to apply for your jobs.” That is not going to work. Lots of business people came along to the select committee and said to us that they did have skills shortages.

If anyone thinks that this is just an issue that Dr Wayne Mapp is pursuing because this bill happens to be in his name, then they need to be very clear that, no, this is key policy for the National Party. Some of National’s key policy is to take away job security from workers. We have been through this before, and we know exactly where the National Party is heading with this bill. Those members want to do away with workers’ rights. If anyone thinks that this is just Dr Wayne Mapp and his bright idea, then I will let people know about Don Brash and what he had to say in April 2003.

Darren Hughes: No, there’s an injunction; you can’t say that.

SUE MORONEY: No, I think that I can say this; this was reported in the media. Don Brash wants to allow employers to sack staff more easily without fear of recourse to the Employment Court. He said: “There should be a trial period”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair and the House for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

SUE MORONEY: Prior to the dinner break I was reminding members that this idea of having no job security for all workers in this country in the first 3 months of their employment was not just an idea that Dr Wayne Mapp had all by himself, but an idea that was supported by the National Party at large. I was quoting Don Brash’s view that he wished there could be a trial period of 90 days during which an employer could dismiss an employee without drama and without penalty and just say: “Look, this isn’t working out. I’d like you to leave.” Dr Don Brash said: “I regard the present employment laws as highly damaging for small business. If it is very costly and time consuming for an employer to end an employment relationship, then of course a rational employer would take care not to hire people perceived as a bit risky—people who might be too young, too old, or too brown.”

This is from National Party members, who, as a whole, support this type of approach to reduce workers’ rights. But it is no surprise. It is not surprising from a party whose employment relations policy would have us reproduce the Employment Contracts Act in drag and take workers back to the nasty 1990s. It is not surprising from a party that wishes to make it easy for employers to bargain employees out of their holiday entitlements. It is not surprising from a party that supports revoking the fair Holidays Act amendments. It wants to scrap the workplace safety provisions, in the name of saving money, and it wants to reverse the protection afforded to vulnerable workers by this Government.

The scary thing about the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill is that it shows, upfront and clearly, the employment policies National wishes to pursue—those that take away workers’ rights. This is the policy that National members want us to know about. Is that not scary? Imagine the policies they do not want the New Zealand public to know about. I would like the public to contemplate that. This is the thing that they think we ought to know about. Taking away workers’ rights in the current environment is the way the National Party wants to proceed.

As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I was very interested in what this 90-day probationary period would mean for rural areas. I was, therefore, somewhat disturbed to listen to the Federated Farmers submission on this bill. They said to the select committee that basically they had enormous difficulty attracting people out of the urban areas, where the labour market is. They said they needed to attract people from those urban areas, and that those people had to make a big decision to shift their families and to move to an environment in the rural countryside so that they could become the labour workforce for farmers.

I asked Federated Farmers whether they had a skills shortage in their sector, and they said that they most certainly did. I then asked them whether they thought that members of Federated Farmers would wish to use a probationary period in their employment contracts. The reason I asked was that Dr Wayne Mapp has made quite an issue of this being a voluntary provision, and has, in fact, put an amendment forward for discussion at the select committee. He argued that no employer in his or her right mind who had a skills shortage and a desperate need for labour would contemplate a probationary period. Ms Bennett, one of Dr Mapp’s colleagues, reiterated that in her speech in this second reading.

Those members said that employers are not silly, and that if they have a skills shortage they will not insist on having a probationary period in their employment contracts. How wrong could they be? Federated Farmers told us that 100 percent of their members—whom they surveyed on this issue of a probationary period bill—would insist on putting a probationary period into their employment contracts. That proved that the assertion from the National Party was wrong. Federated Farmers told the committee members that that assertion was wrong.

Then the New Zealand Educational Institute came to talk to the committee about its concern about what this probationary period bill would mean for recruiting teachers to rural schools. That is an issue close to my heart. My young children attend a small rural school, and I know that recruitment of quality teachers is a key issue. The New Zealand Educational Institute told us that it was not too sure whether boards of trustees would want to include a probationary period in their contracts. However, it said that a significant number of boards of trustees in rural areas have farmers as members of their boards. Clearly, the Federated Farmers submission was very important in reminding us that this would affect the attraction of quality teachers to rural schools. I come from a background with the Nurses Organisation, and I know that for nurses the thought that they would have no job security for the first 3 months of their employment would make a big difference when deciding whether to move from one district health board to another.

I was also very concerned to hear submissions about how workers would be reluctant to raise genuine health and safety concerns in the first 3 months of their employment if a probationary period was in place. Those submitters were genuinely afraid. In fact, cases were presented to the select committee whereby workers had raised health and safety issues and had lost their job as a result. Again, this probationary period will be bad in terms of health and safety for workers in their employment.

One of the overwhelming things that happened at the select committee was that, even though the National Party purported that its reason for putting this bill forward was that it wanted to improve the employment situation for young people—young Māori, in particular—nobody representing young workers, Māori workers, or, in that case, young Māori, came forward to support this bill. Groups that came forward to advocate on behalf of those interests did so in order to oppose the bill.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very important legislation, which is based on the premise that if we are to have successful businesses, grow the economy, and have productivity in the economy, then we have to have a skilled and competitive workforce, compliance costs that are within reason, and some assurance that people in business are prepared to invest and get a return on their investment dollar. When we look at business as a whole—and members have heard me speak on other occasions about the importance of business in our communities and the role it plays in our GDP—we see some very important facets in which, in our view, this Government has not performed. Labour members are under the misapprehension that all employers are wrong and are guilty unless proved innocent. They believe that employers will try to rip somebody off just for the sake of doing that. We have heard that tonight.

We have to build a very strong base for business so that there is some certainty and continuity. Businesses are built on customer bases. They are built up because somebody is prepared to buy or use the service that a business will deliver. Everything is driven by the market, so if we do not have a strong customer base, then we do not have a business. Some of the experiences that I have had of restructuring businesses over the years have occurred because of the fact that although many businesses are started, not many of them succeed unless the owners have done the homework and the preparatory work to set frameworks in place. One of the statistics that is always used in relation to trying to gain new customers is that it costs six times as much to try to get a new customer as it does to retain the customer one has in the first place.

So it is with employment. If somebody is making a contribution and is going to add value to a business, the employer will be prepared to put time and effort into that person—through training, seminars, and other incentives such as superannuation, mileage allowances, or whatever—to retain that person. Good employees in a business often become frontline staff, and they can be a real asset to the business.

But so many businesses these days are saying that it is not worth the risk. They are not prepared to take on anybody extra, because too many facets of compliance cost make it more difficult for them, and it is not really worth the effort. Business owners may then say they will run their businesses themselves, with their existing staff, or they may even cut back, making it easier for them to control their operations.

In looking at business growth, I have here a dossier put out by Business New Zealand. It talks about the seven pillars of growth, one of which is specifically about a business-friendly environment. It talks about New Zealanders wanting growth and what they need now to achieve that. A number of important bullet points follow. One that is highlighted is for a grievance-free probation period to be put into the Employment Relations Act. You see, one of the things that employers or prospective employers do when they invest in staff is make sure they have the right people to start with. Many I have talked with over the years, especially those who have been unemployed, say that it is very difficult to get jobs, because employers are reluctant to take them on. Those people are just asking for a chance, for an opportunity to get their foot inside the door, and that is the opportunity provided in Wayne Mapp’s bill.

The bill talks about giving people a 90-day probationary period. Earlier on, I was an advocate for a 180-day grievance-free period. In fact, that is common overseas. New Zealand is the only country that does not have that probationary period. If we want to grow the economy—if we want to have the productivity that everyone talks about—then let us make it easy for employers to get staff and train them. Taking somebody on is a big investment; it does not just happen. Employees have to be trained up in order to deal with the most important person in the business—the customer. Employees may well be in a workshop environment, but they still have a role to play in making sure that the quality of the goods the business produces is up to par with whatever the market expects and with whatever the competition produces.

I have some figures here that talk about the main sources of compliance in relation to employment. A pie graph shows countries with high employment areas, yet with compliance costs that are very low because they have adopted the sort of provision I am talking about. Austria, Belgium, Finland, and Sweden are countries that have provisions allowing for growth in their economies.

Agenda 2010 is a document I have talked about before in relation to the Commission of the European Communities. When I was in Germany last year—[Interruption] The member might like to listen to this, because I was a guest of the Bundestag, where I learnt that while unemployment is high in Germany, its productivity is three times greater than New Zealand’s. The document says that in respect of the challenges relating to employees, labour markets, and skill shortages—the challenges we have here—the other countries of the European Community are asking how to create incentives for businesses to grow and take on staff so they can contribute not only to their local communities but also to their regional communities and, ultimately, to the benefit of their whole country.

Agenda 2010 actually sets out provisions for the employment of staff. It talks about taking people on for a grievance-free period in order to give them skills. In fact, it goes so far as to state—which we are not advocating—that if employers employ fewer than five people, then, regardless, they can be dismissed at any time. We would never go to that stage. But in terms of being able to take somebody on and give them a chance, when we know there are sectors within the community that are disadvantaged, Wayne Mapp’s initiative in this bill is pretty significant. If we want entrepreneurial enterprise, if we want investment in the economy, and if we actually want to grow those things that are important, then this measure is the sort of measure that becomes important.

It is interesting that we have opposition from members on the other side of the House. They have never invested a dollar in business, nor employed anyone. They would absolutely not have a clue what we are talking about. They have never been risk-takers. They have a lot of theories, but they have never invested a dollar to say: “This is how it works.”, and been prepared to take a risk. They have all come from one side of the fence. They believe that employers are all wrong and are trying to rip everybody off.

Well, that is not the case. If there is no investment or no employers, then people have no chance to get a job. We are saying that the legislation advocated and promoted by Dr Mapp—and we have had feedback from around the country—is a measure to allow people to get a foot inside the door. If this Government is going to say that it will not allow that, then woe betide it, because in 2 years’ time when those members are out, and down the road—because we will be the Government—we will remind them about that. This is a Government that is anti-business and anti-employer. It does not understand what makes the world go around. In 2 years’ time—it might be less than that; it might be next year—we will say that if we want productivity, if we want to promote entrepreneurs, risk-takers, then this bill is the sort of measure that will make it work

Along with getting rid of those other provisions, we will lower taxation, sort out accident compensation, and reduce the Resource Management Act consent process—those sorts of things. They are the challenges that face business, and I commend Dr Mapp and those members of the National team who have spoken in the House on this bill. This is good legislation. It goes to the heart of growing the economy and giving ownership back where it belongs—to those people who are prepared to invest and make sacrifices. That is good for the economy and that is good for employers and their staff. We welcome it. In fact, this Government, by not voting for the bill, will be held to account in less than 2 years’ time.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I would like to make a few comments in relation to the issues raised by the previous speaker. He talked about the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. I have to say that a lot of worker groups have asked for my opinion on this bill, and, in doing so, have also referred to it as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. The first thing I said to them was that it is not Wayne Mapp’s bill but is National’s bill. The reason I told them it is National’s bill is that in the first instance it strips away workers’ rights. It strips away the personal grievance provisions and gives no insight into health and safety issues on the job while someone is employed. I made that very clear by getting the brand right. The brand is that this bill is the very essence of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights and reduce their terms and conditions of employment. That is the first thing I told people.

The second thing I want to comment on relates to Lindsay Tisch’s statement that this bill will give some certainty, continuity, and investment. Well, pray tell me how it will do that. The opening remarks in the explanatory note of the bill state: “The purpose of a probation period for new employees is to enable employers to take a chance with new employees”. How will that give certainty? It actually does the reverse of that. If employers promote the fact that they want workers on a trial basis for 90 days, then those workers will be employed for fewer than 90 days—in fact, for 89 days—before they get the sack. This bill contains no provision for them to find any recourse or redress if that happens; they will be gone down the road by lunchtime. I cannot see how the heck that member thinks this bill will promote any certainty.

The second thing Lindsay Tisch mentioned was continuity. Continuity means the opportunity to have security on the job. Well, how the heck will we get security on the job if we are saying that employees will be employed for only up to 90 days? Members know as well as I do that if there is a chance for some employers to keep workers employed on a casual basis, they will take it, so this bill is just a platform to achieve another extension of the casualisation of the workforce.

The third issue raised by Lindsay Tisch that I want to talk about is that he saw this bill as being an investment. How the heck can this bill be seen as an investment, when we all know that the only investment in employment is to train workers? How will training be introduced in fewer than 90 days? What sort of promotional opportunities and security will that give to employees? Absolutely none! Members know as well as I do that those three points that Lindsay Tisch raised are a lot of hogwash. There would be the opposite of certainty, continuity and investment under this legislation.

The other issue I have shared with workers who wanted my opinion related to the group of workers this legislation would attack. I spoke to a lot of Pacific Island and Māori workers, and predominantly to those groups in areas where trials have been introduced. Under the current Act there is an opportunity for trials to be held, but going along with that opportunity there are also protections in terms of personal grievance rights, health and safety provisions and, at the end of the day, the chance for redress through the courts if employees are sacked.

So I tell Wayne Mapp that I cannot see any reason why he is promoting this bill, other than because of the fact that it is at the very heart—it is the very essence—of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights. At the end of the day, that is the intention.

Hon Members: No.

DAVE HEREORA: Yes, that is the intention, and we know that is a core policy plank of the National Party.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): I am delighted to say that Labour opposes the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. It was introduced with absolutely no definition of a problem. Before any legislation comes to this House, we should have a clear view of the problem the legislation aims to address. This bill had no analysis, at all, of what it was trying to deliver. Then we had to watch the spectacle of the frantic attempts of its proponent, Dr Wayne Mapp, to water it down. Every single possible amendment to water it down was made by the proponent of the bill, and he still seems unable to muster enough support for it in this House. Well, I am proud of the House of Representatives if we reject this type of legislation, and I certainly hope we will not have to waste too much time in the future with bills that are as shallow and self-serving as the bill proposed by Wayne Mapp.

Labour proposes a positive workplace relationship, where workers are valued and treated fairly and where employers are able to utilise the talents of their workforces to improve their businesses. We are all in this together; we are not in opposition. The labour market situation in New Zealand is extraordinary. We have the lowest unemployment numbers in decades. The two biggest challenges facing us are, firstly, filling job vacancies and, secondly, improving our productivity. When I say “us”, I mean all of us—central government, businesses, and unions—working together to address those two critical problems. Those are the labour market challenges that this Government, with business and with unions, is addressing.

The OECD says that we are the third-ranked country in the world in general flexibility of the labour market. The World Bank this year rated our country as No. 1 in the world for ease of doing business. So the OECD and the World Bank think we have got it right, but National wants to turn us back to the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s, where workers had their rights stripped and were treated as commodities rather than as valued contributors in the workplace and in our economy.

I mentioned the two biggest challenges facing our country in the labour market area, but there are two other issues I want to mention. The first is the issue of vexatious litigants and of employment relations consultants—particularly those referred to by my colleagues earlier: the “no win, no fee” consultants. The second, other big issue is the casualisation of workers. Those are genuine issues of concern, and I have committed our Government to working on both those issues after reading submissions and after discussion with my colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown.

I want to acknowledge Peter Brown for his work during the process of the bill. He has engaged in discussion with me, and with members of the select committee, in a constructive, open, and direct way. He has an attitude of wanting to get things done, of getting problems identified and addressed, and of making real progress on issues of concern for New Zealand employers and New Zealand workers. I look forward to continuing that work in Parliament. I trust that we will have fewer ill-considered bills such as this one in the future. It spends the time of Parliament in a way that could be much better utilised in addressing the real challenges that I look forward to continuing to address as Minister of Labour.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 53

New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 67

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Resource Management (Restricted Coastal
Activities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 11 October.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill, and I think that the Hon Nick Smith has done a sterling job in bringing it to the House. Certainly, it was well overdue, and I think that the Whangamata marina issue brought the matter into the forefront of the minds of the public throughout New Zealand, without a doubt. What did the court find, in regard to the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Chris Carter? The court found that the Minister had set about reconsidering the evidence and, accordingly, had made a procedural error. We all know that the marina proposal was not appealed further than the Environment Court, and that a lot of the people who had opposed that particular activity did not appeal against it to the Environment Court. They knew they could have another go at the Minister—and they did. The Minister fell for that, so made a procedural error.

How far can the Minister reconsider the findings of the Environment Court? The Minister, in making his decision, stated: “I have also considered the evidence presented to the Court, the Court transcripts that were available and the comments that the applicant has provided to me”. The High Court found that under section 119 of the Resource Management Act, the Minister has the discretion to differ from the recommendation of the Environment Court, provided he or she takes into account the recommendation and gives reasons for the final decision. But, overall, the Minister’s discretion under section 119 is relatively confined, and it was specifically found that it was not the function of the Minister to hear witnesses and test the quality of the evidence and submissions marshalled in support of the relevant criteria. That is what the hearing committee and the Environment Court do. If the Minister requires further clarification of the factual aspects of the matter, he or she should request a report from the Environment Court or hearing committee.

But did Chris Carter, the Minister, do that? No, he did not. He went to Whangamata, organised some meetings, had about half an hour with the people in support of the Whangamata marina proposal, and then spent about half a day with the rest. He went down and looked at the issue around seafood—kai moana. But even then the tide was only half out, and assumptions were made about what that meant. The Minister was not in a position to be impartial about the issue when he was being persuaded by a number of people—who did not go through the process—that he should oppose the Environment Court decision.

Another question was raised about whether the Minister was permitted to reconsider the evidence, and whether he did that fairly. The court found that despite its earlier conclusion on the first argument, the Minister had the power to reconsider the evidence, and that the best procedure for the Minister would have been to review the transcripts in the presence of counsel from both parties who were present at the hearing. Also, it found that the Minister should have used most of the available statutory period of 20 working days to review the evidence, and that the fact that the Minister left that critical task until the weekend before the decision was released was unfair. Accordingly, the court found that the decision was in breach of natural justice, and that the Minister had made yet another error of law. So we have two counts of errors already; it is pretty amazing.

It is no wonder that Nick Smith is putting forward the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill, because it is high time for the Minister’s discretion in that regard to be removed. That is what this bill is all about. That is what the Whangamata marina case has highlighted. There we had the Minister fail on two counts of law; that has been found to be the case. Was it proper and fair for the Minister to state that he had “disregarded the comments made to me”—his words—at meetings at Whangamata? That was when, on 30 January 2006, he had the several meetings that I talked about. He met with people who were for and against the proposal, but the time he spent with the people who were for the proposal was totally outweighed by the time spent with those who were opposed to it. Those same people—those opposed to it—had not gone through the proper process. They were lobbying the Minister vigorously. So how could one say that the Minister was not unduly influenced by that?

Members may recall that under new section 119 in clause 4 of this bill, the Minister is statutorily prohibited from considering new evidence and must go back to the Environment Court. That is what this bill is all about. It is a very small bill of only six clauses, but it is vitally important.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): I rise to support my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith in this Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. This bill is about redeeming the Resource Management Act consent process before it is irrevocably damaged. It amends provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to coastal activities and seeks to make the Environment Court the last stop for an inquiry for restricted coastal activity.

The performance—the debacle—that played out over the Whangamata marina has threatened the integrity of the process of the Resource Management Act. The outcry from New Zealanders was warranted. The disgust of New Zealanders was warranted. Fourteen years is a long time; not even New Zealand courts sentence someone to hard labour for as long as that. But the supporters of the Whangamata marina project spent that amount of time challenging this. It was too long, and then for nought. This is the sorry tale of how it went: first, the Thames-Coromandel District Council approved it; second, Environment Waikato approved it; and, third, the Department of Conservation signed an agreement, and approved it. Then followed an appeal to the Environment Court and 28 days of scrutiny. Then the decision came. That decision was to proceed. And then the Minister used his veto. One might think that this was the Minister’s first opportunity to make his views known, but that would be completely wrong.

Let me describe what the Minister can do prior to using his current power of veto. He has lots of chances. The Minister of Conservation writes and approves the national Coastal Policy Statement. Then he approves every regional coastal policy statement. Then he appoints a member to the hearings committee that hears the consents. He has the right to submit; he has the right to appeal. The Minister has plenty of opportunities to make his views known. There were five opportunities for his impact. Why does the Minister need more? In 1991 National put the power of ministerial veto into law, but there was a difference back then. There were no national Coastal Policy Statement or regional coastal policy statements back then. Therefore, it was reasonable to supply a safeguard in the form of a ministerial veto.

I remind the House of the Whangamata marina and the injustice served up there by the Minister. He used his power of veto in an unscrupulous way. The judge in the High Court found that the Minister broke the law—not once, not twice, but three times—and there was no small cost associated with that. One thousand members of the Whangamata Marina Society would say that the cost was huge in terms of 14 years of their lives and $1.5 million for a consent that was undone, unlawfully. The beauty of this bill is that it would not only restore integrity and confidence in the process but also reduce the delay and the costs.

We are talking about the Resource Management Act tonight—about that lengthy process that holds up so much progress in New Zealand; that lengthy process that could be made better with this bill. We are not talking about the hasty plans that this Labour Government has—or should I say that Trevor Mallard, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has, all for his maimai or his “Clark park”—to circumvent the Resource Management Act through hasty legislation. We are not talking about that; we are simply talking about removing something that is now quite unnecessary: the ministerial veto. That ministerial veto has been abused, because we know that the people of Whangamata marina have spent 14 years going through a process that should have seen some resolution. Instead, they are seeing all their work, their $1.5 million dollars worth of effort, undone. These people must now surely wonder what on earth they can do to make things move forward in their part of New Zealand.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to speak to the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to the select committee, so that the public can have their input into this legislation. That, of course, is a very valuable part of the process.

This issue has been discussed extensively in the media. It has also been discussed extensively by the people of Whangamata, and I know that people have contacted Peter Brown from New Zealand First, and Winston Peters, regarding this issue. We have received emails and many letters asking us to ensure that this issue is looked at again—hence our support for referral to the select committee.

New Zealand First also considered drafting a bill on this very important issue, called the “Whangamata Marina Bill”. I believe that it went into the ballot at one point in time.

Residents over in the Whangamata area spent $1.3 million on taking this case through the Environment Court, and thus far have not achieved anything. That is very, very sad.

It was interesting, too, that the High Court decision actually supported the Environment Court. So we believe that further clarification of this matter is definitely required. The people of Whangamata do need some clarity. They do need to work through this particular issue. We believe that the select committee is the most important place for that to occur, so we support the bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party does not support the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill. The bill is a response to the Minister of Conservation’s decision to decline an application for the development of a marina at Whangamata. The application was to use 4 hectares of the coastal marine zone to construct and operate the marina, and to cover a salt marsh for development as a parking area. We, along with thousands of hapū, coastal communities, and city dwellers, are increasingly opposed to the fierce drive in this country to privatise our coastlines and marine areas. The Whangamata debate is a typical example of that drive to privatise, and we are very pleased that the development has not proceeded.

We were disappointed in the Environment Court’s decision to grant the proposal, and we fully supported the Minister of Conservation’s decision to exercise his statutory role in favour of the environment. His decision meant that the area had been kept safe for everyone to use as a food basket and as a national treasure. We support the mana whenua of the area, who have been consistently opposed to the development because it would destroy a highly valued pātaka kai. It is very rare for hapū and iwi considerations to be taken seriously by Ministers, and we are very pleased that this Minister did so. The consistent opposition by the mana whenua demonstrates, in our view, that iwi concerns about the protection of the environment from inappropriate development provide a solid basis for the protection of the environment for everyone. By recognising and respecting the kaitiakitanga of the mana whenua there, strong local communities can be built from this common ground.

In our view, the decision of the High Court was very disappointing, but it is worth noting that, as a judicial review case, the court did not find any evidence of bias, predetermination, or irrationality in the Minister’s decision. The judicial review was upheld on three procedural matters, and it is fair to say that we are also very disappointed that those procedural mistakes were made in such an important matter. We do expect better of the Minister.

What has been quite fascinating—and not in a good way—is the very intense backlash by those who want to privatise public space. That is what this application was really all about—turning usable, accessible public space into privately owned space. I have heard proponents of the marina say that it will remain a public area because people will be able to walk along the marina, fish off the walkways, and look at all the lovely boats. If we applied a land analogy to that approach, we would say that it is like turning a community park, with a community garden and space for families, sport, and picnics, into a large concrete car-park and then say that it is still a public space because people can have the enormous privilege of walking through the enormous concrete car-park and looking at all the Bentleys as they go by.

Yet we face this kind of hysterical response from those who want to privatise these public spaces. I think Nick Smith has been leading some of that hysteria—the backlash against the protection of public access to the foreshore and seabed. In the foreshore and seabed debate, National used the rights of access and the notion of the New Zealand way of life, with picnics and swimming, as reasons to keep hapū and iwi from having any tikanga interests in the coastal areas. National’s Nick Smith was especially vocal about those public rights. He said that the beach was the core to being a New Zealander. He said that it was our right to grab the picnic bag or the barbecue and go to the beach. Yet on the Whangamata issue he staunchly defends the private rights of some to acquire public property and to restrict public access.

I know that Nick Smith will now argue that the bill is about the integrity of the court process, but he simply would not have put this bill in the ballot if the Environment Court had declined the application and the Minister had overturned that decision. Of course, he could have got rid of the ministerial discretion provision when he was Minister. The fact is that we can have a process for the growth and development of our economy that does not steal from the public and that does not destroy our environmental values. We must stop the private capture of public space.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. The Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill is just a little bit mischievous. It is an attempt to remove the powers of the Minister of Conservation. It is not specifically about Whangamata, although it does assume that the Minister’s decision to halt development of the Whangamata marina brings the resource consent process into disrepute. So it is appropriate that we consider the background to that decision in order to ensure that the House is properly informed on the setting for the bill.

I ask the House to recall that the Hauraki Māori Trust Board, Te Kupenga o Ngāti Hako, Ngāti Whanaunga, Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāti Tamaterā, and the Whangamata Māori Committee have been fighting for years to preserve the environment in and around Whangamata, and, indeed, the cultural heritage of that whole area. As part of that fight they also oppose the marina development, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the marina would destroy traditional fishing grounds, due to significant and ongoing dredging of the channel where the kai moana grounds are. The harbours and estuaries are essential breeding, nursery, and feeding grounds—a natural ecosystem for kai moana such as pātiki, matamata, and kūaka. Secondly, the proposed car-park would destroy one of the few remaining wetlands in the area, a saltmarsh that is home to important birdlife. Thirdly, destruction of the coastal environment would seriously impact on the very identity of the local people, both Māori and Pākehā, for whom the local kai moana beds have provided sustenance for many generations. Finally, keeping the foreshore and seabed in its current state would guarantee access to the public of New Zealand—access that a marina would destroy—and that is a commitment that the Māori Party is proud to uphold in its bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act that so divided our nation.

I do not like saying that it was surprising that the Minister came down on the side of the tangata whenua, but we are surprised—and grateful, I might add—because a Minister of the Crown backing Māori on a foreshore and seabed deal is about as rare as some of the wildlife that is likely to be saved by his decision. Be that as it may, the Minister’s decision dovetailed nicely with the call from the Hauraki people that their rights to kaitiakitanga and their rights to their kai moana beds were being threatened by the development plans. Then guess what happens? To nobody’s surprise at all, the pro-development brigade sends somebody rushing into Parliament to repeal section 119 of the Resource Management Act, which gives the Minister of Conservation the final word on coastal permits. The Resource Management Act is a flawed document that could do with improvement, but its intentions are good and its focus on protecting and managing the nation’s resources is clear. The problem of the Act lies in how it is interpreted and how it is used. On the other hand, this bill is simply an amendment to aid development.

The Resource Management Act has clear responsibilities for the consultation of iwi on resource applications, discharge consents, and wāhi tapu in ways that will enhance our coastline and respect traditional beliefs. The Act also has the capacity to protect the environment, ensure Māori involvement in decision making, and guarantee the public voice. Enhancing those roles for the benefit of all New Zealanders is what this House should be addressing, rather than focusing on one bit that upsets developers.

If this bill were to go through—if, indeed, the Minister’s decision is not upheld—Labour would effectively be in a situation of denying public access to the foreshore and seabed, destroying the environment, and privatising resources. These are all the things Labour said it would not do with its “Stealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act”. Funnily enough, National, which opposed privatising public lands during the foreshore and seabed debate, will be similarly compromised. I would laugh if this were not so tragic.

The 1991 Resource Management Act requires that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be taken into account in managing the natural and physical resources of Aotearoa. This bill will simply add to the alienation of Māori from those resources over which they still have a say. The Māori Party is not opposed to development, but we will oppose this bill because it is simply a reaction to a battle lost. In its place we propose to ensure the protection of Treaty rights, property rights, and genuine access for all New Zealanders to the foreshore and seabed through our own Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill. Kia ora tātou.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): Firstly, I offer my congratulations to Nick Smith on his bill being drawn from the ballot. Secondly, I say that in 2005, during the elections, United Future went to the nation with a policy, and I quote, to: “remove the powers of the Minister of Conservation to block any development or activity that has received a resource consent.” So we are not johnny-come-latelys to this issue; we actually had formed a view prior to the Whangamata marina decision that it was time for this veto power to go. It has outlived its usefulness. The Resource Management Act has been with us for about 15 years. When it was enacted there was no Environment Court. We now have an Environment Court; we now have a proven, rehearsed, and well-oiled machine in terms of granting resource consents. From United Future’s point of view it is, therefore, time for the Minister’s power of veto to go.

Members can imagine our shock and horror, in the light of that policy, when we actually witnessed the Minister of Conservation veto the Whangamata marina decision. I ask members to think about the issue for a moment. The Whangamata Marina Society had spent 13 years following due process. It had gone through the Resource Management Act process all the way through to the Environment Court. It had spent $1.3 million—not of somebody else’s but of its own money—to get to that point. Quite frankly, the veto by the Minister of Conservation following that process and overturning the recommendation of the Environment Court is simply an abuse of process. It is fundamentally unfair and unjust. In our view compensation should be paid to the Whangamata Marina Society for the great loss they have suffered over this matter. Fortunately, the matter might be revisited now that the court wisely has said to the Minister that he got it wrong and must go away and do it again.

That veto decision by the Minister sets a very bad precedent indeed for the whole Resource Management Act process. Why would anybody spend a lot of money taking a project through the whole Resource Management Act process if, at the end of the process, the Minister can just come along and say: “Sorry, it’s not going to happen.”? Why would those who are opposed to various projects bother to go to the Environment Court? Some groups did not bother to go to the Environment Court on this particular situation, and said: “No, no, we’ll just bypass that; we’ll go to the Minister. We’ll get our political ducks lined up and we’ll rely on him to overturn it.” It is really a very unfortunate precedent that has long-term negative effects for the whole Resource Management Act process.

This decision, therefore, cannot be allowed to create a precedent. The right thing to do, the just thing to do, the fair thing to do, and sensible thing to do is to remove the Minister’s veto powers. United Future do not believe in Muldoon-style vetoes, Fidel Castro-style vetoes, or Stalinist-style vetoes. After all, people such as the judges of the Environment Court have heard all the evidence, weighed and evaluated the evidence, and made a decision based on that evidence. This is evidence that the Minister has not been personally privy to and has not personally heard. He has not gone through hours and hours of weighing up the various points of view, the pros and the cons. We, therefore, think it is a most unsatisfactory part of New Zealand law that we still have these Draconian veto powers resided in a person, where the assumption, basically, is that he is all-wise, all-knowing, and that he alone has the ability to make a decision of this sort.

Frankly, this is not the New Zealand way. The New Zealand way is to follow due process to let everybody have their say and for a decision to be made by those people who have heard the evidence, can weigh up the various merits of each individual argument, and can make a decision. That decision should stick, and there should be no question of the Minister coming along in the future and saying: “I don’t like it—go get lost.” Accordingly, United Future supports the first reading of this bill and, I suspect, its passage all the way through the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have just come from the Engineering Excellence Awards, where the Prime Minister and a number of Ministers of the Crown are talking about the engineering infrastructure that New Zealand needs. The words on the lips of every one of the engineers there are about the problems associated with the Resource Management Act. I have just had a conversation with a very senior engineer from Beca Carter, who pointed out to me that it generally takes six times as long to get a resource consent for an infrastructure project as it takes to build it. That is why members of the National Party say that we must reform the Resource Management Act, so that we can get timely decisions on the way that we manage our environment and resources.

I thank members from United Future and from the New Zealand First Party for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. They have made a clear point about how they have been offended as New Zealanders by what has happened to the people of Whangamata.

I challenge the members of the Māori Party. The Māori Party was formed out of a gut-wrenching debate amongst Māori, when Parliament overrode the courts in respect of the foreshore and seabed. I ask why it is then, that on that principle—which has some soundness—Māori Party members say on this bill that they support the decisions of the court only sometimes, when those decisions are in their favour, and that they are not prepared to back the independence of the judiciary in respect of the Environment Court’s decision on Whangamata. I say to Māori Party members that their logic is lost. By not supporting this legislation, they water down the very principle on which they came to Parliament.

But the ultimate double standard has been shown by Labour. Right now, as we speak, Labour is proposing to completely overrule the resource management process for a 60,000-seat stadium on the waterfront of Auckland. I ask Labour members what is different about a stadium in Auckland as compared with a marina at Whangamata. The poor people of Whangamata have been through a resource consent process that has taken 14 years. Twenty days of evidence were heard in the Environment Court. This Government says it is OK for the Minister of Conservation to break the law not just once but—according to the High Court—three times in the decision over the Whangamata marina. I say to Government members that it is a complete double standard to give speeches on this bill that defend the resource management process, and then to say that it does not apply to them when they want to build a stadium. That is not good enough. The public will reject the Government and throw its members out when they adopt that sort of principle of one rule for everybody else but a different rule for themselves.

I put forward the argument that there is no need for a ministerial veto to be in the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Conservation approves the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and regional coastal policy statements. He has the capacity to appoint the person who hears a resource consent application, as occurred with regard to Whangamata. He also has the capacity to appeal a decision. He does not need to have the veto power and, as the High Court rightly concluded, the power is so narrow it is worthless. It only adds to the delays and frustration of the resource management process.

I thank members for their contributions to this debate. This is a testing time. The debate about the Minister of Conservation’s power of veto has been so polluted by Chris Carter’s irresponsible decision that even if that power does not go through the passage of this bill, it will go eventually. This bill is good law. It goes to the heart of the sorts of changes we need to make to the Resource Management Act in order to make it fair and for the process to have integrity. I encourage this House to send this bill to a select committee, so that not only the people of Whangamata but all New Zealanders may be able to have some integrity restored to the resource management process.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; Progressive 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very unusual situation. It is the first time in my time that the House has voted on a bill 60 all. I point out to the House that it is the bill’s first reading. I would thus seek the leave of the House for the bill to be referred through to the select committee so at least the public may have the opportunity—in the select committee—to consider a bill that clearly has the House very evenly divided.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I move, That the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

It is a great pleasure finally to be able to move this bill tonight for its first reading in the hope that it will win the support of parties in Parliament for consideration at that select committee. I am under no doubt at all that the greatest disservice that a Government has ever done to the community of Kapiti, in my electorate of Otaki, was the sale of Paraparaumu Airport in 1995. That decision was not short of a total disgrace, and it is in that shameful action that this bill finds its origin.

Indeed, I hope that in the National Party contribution tonight, before we hear any great words of eloquence, we will first of all hear an apology for what happened in 1995 when a very important community asset was ripped away from the people of that community and handed over into private hands. The contentious sale of that airport was described by a former Minister of Transport as being a privatisation more botched than the sale of the railways. Given what a total disaster that fire sale of a strategic asset was, I think that is really saying something. It really does sum up the entire way the issue of Paraparaumu Airport has had to be dealt with in the last 11 years.

An airport at Paraparaumu was achieved only after land was compulsorily acquired by the Crown between 1939 and 1949. From that time until the 1990s the aerodrome continued in use until, as part of the right-wing zealotry of the 1990s, the National Government of the time decided that the airport had to be sold simply because it was Crown-owned. That approach put ideology ahead of what was practical and totally rode roughshod over what was valued by the community. That was the approach of the National Government of the time and it has been the approach of National ever since.

When the decision was made to sell Paraparaumu Airport, the National Cabinet directive stated that the sale had to be: “subject to the Crown meeting its obligations to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi and to former owners under the Public Works Act”. I am firmly of the view that this never happened in any just way, and that anybody who thinks that directive by the Cabinet at the time was met is vastly and hugely mistaken in terms of how Māori and former landowners have been treated. Indeed, one of the great reasons that motivates me with this bill is to try to achieve some sense of justice for those whom I believe have been very badly treated by that sale.

In fact, if members read the Auditor-General’s report into the sale process, they will find that although the National Government of the time identified who former landowners were, they never even bothered to contact them in any meaningful way to justify the directive that their own Cabinet had set out. It was an absolute litany of failure and neglect and, indeed, one could go even further in that regard.

There is no doubt that for former landowners this issue has been a very, very sorry saga indeed. It has been a very controversial issue. It came before Parliament and there was public debate on the issue. The sale itself was the subject of two court challenges, so concerned were people about the way that the privatisation was being conducted. The sales process was, for privatisation—in terms of the Auditor-General’s report and in the way that he made clear—an example of how not to do a privatisation, and that is why National members should hang their heads in shame over this decision.

One hundred and thirty hectares of prime land—of airport land—was sold for $1.6 million. I know we are talking about 1995 here, but 130 hectares was sold for $1.6 million. I will be very interested to hear tonight whether National members today would regard that as a fair price and a just price for that land. I will be very interested to hear their views on the sale and on the sale price. I will be very interested to know whether National members of Parliament here tonight, who can be said to represent that former National Government, will acknowledge the fact that shortly after that land was sold—the 130 hectares—a small portion, a tiny portion, of that land was sold for $800,000, which enabled half of the purchase price of $1.6 million to be reclaimed. That is the context in which this bill has been drafted, and what took place is an absolute disgrace.

The fear, of course, was always that an ulterior motive lay behind the sale of the airport land, in terms of turning it into residential housing and losing a key strategic asset for the people of Kapiti. I am firmly of the view that it was only the vigilant community in Kapiti, and in particular the airport users, who prevented that from happening. I have no doubt about that at all.

What brought us to this point was a petition to this Parliament by Ross Sutherland and many others, which started a select committee process. The petition was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, chaired by my friend and colleague the Hon Mark Gosche, which recommended two legislative changes and an Auditor-General’s inquiry. The Auditor-General picked up the inquiry and came back with a report that slammed entire aspects of the sale and confirmed what many people in my electorate thought and held to be true—that this had not been a fair and just sale.

The member for Maungakiekie’s select committee recommended two changes: one to the Public Works Act and another to the Airport Authorities Act. I picked up the work on the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill. In June this year I called a public meeting in Paraparaumu to discuss the airport, which nearly 500 people attended. That might not sound like a lot of people to my city colleagues, but in terms of my electorate this was the biggest meeting in Kapiti for years and years, and reinforced to me just how important people consider our airport to be for the community.

Since that time, and while the bill has been worked on by me, the airport has been sold again. Sadly, we have never been told the purchase price of the airport in its most recent guise, but I suspect it is more than $1.6 million. I suspect it is actually a huge amount more than $1.6 million, and that, of course, just reinforces the folly of the decision to sell that airport in 1995.

I am reassured that the new owners have said publicly on many occasions that they are committed to aviation use for the site. The fact that this has happened is no justification for what National did. The fact that this has been stated by the new owners is simple luck for the people of Kapiti; luck that the people who have bought the airport have put up plans to say that they want to use it as an airport. That is why I still consider this legislation to be absolutely necessary.

We have to make sure that we protect our strategic assets such as airports, and that is why my bill contains two new sections to be inserted into the principal Act, the Airport Authorities Act. The new section 3AB, to be inserted by clause 5, is the bulk of the bill and sets out the main parts of what I am trying to achieve here. Subsection (1) states that if airport land has been privatised under the Act that this bill amends and comes up for sale again, then the Crown has the first right to be able to purchase that land from the owner to make sure that it can be kept for aviation purposes. When the Minister of Transport is considering that matter, the first priority must be whether the aerodrome will continue to remain operational as a private entity—and I regard that as being absolutely important.

Subsection (4) states that if the Crown decides not to buy, then it has to make sure that the responsibilities under the Public Works Act are absolutely fulfilled, and subsection (5) states that the Minister must be consulted if an offer-back provision is made under that Act. So for the first time we have put in place provisions to ensure that justice can be done for those former landowners and, of course, there is that main part regarding Crown buy-back to ensure that none of this land can be taken and used for other purposes.

In new section 3AC, which is also to be inserted by clause 5 and which is the smallest part of this bill, I have included a backstop provision in the event of aviation viability being actively undermined while the land is in private ownership. I propose that the select committee look to tighten up this section in two important ways: firstly, to clarify that it is intended that only identified airport activities are continued on all or part of the land. Therefore, that will allow for other activities, providing—crucially—that they do not undermine such identified airport activities. Secondly, I would like the select committee to consider including in section 3AC the same definition of “identified airport activities” as that term has under the current Airport Authorities Act. I think that will make it very clear what we are trying to do here to protect aviation use.

In the particular case of Paraparaumu Airport I have been assured that the change plan yet to be submitted to the Kapiti Coast District Council by the new owners will make very specific provisions for an airport zone for identified airport activities, which obviously meets the overwhelming concern I have that Paraparaumu Airport should continue to be used for aviation purposes. The Sutherland petition asked this Parliament “to legislate to safeguard the long-term viability of Paraparaumu Airport as a fully operational facility”. I believe that the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill delivers the reassurance that the petitioners asked this House for. They deserve no less.

This asset was stolen, in effect, from the people of Kapiti by the previous National Government. This bill, in some small way, tries to make sure that this important strategic asset in my electorate will continue for many, many years to come.

NATHAN GUY (National): It is great to take a call on this Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill. The member for Otaki has just rambled through a whole lot of historical stuff around the Paraparaumu Airport, and I think he spent about a minute near the end of his speech to actually talk about this toothless bill. So I want to talk a bit about the airport and about where we are at right now.

I think it is important to realise that this airport was built in 1956 or 1957 to supplement Wellington Airport. It was sold, rightly or wrongly, in the 1990s by the National Government because, quite simply, it was not making any money. It was sold when Mr Hughes was probably still at school in the 1990s. The reality is that aerodromes do not make money from landing fees. Members all know that aerodromes make money because they have business included around the airport functions.

I think the important thing to realise is that the airport has been sold, and now we have a second private owner. In 2006 we have the new owner Mr Noel Robinson, whom Labour members are supporting because they think it is of great significance that he got a 2006 Queen’s Birthday honour. He was awarded a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Labour people are supporting Mr Robinson because of his visionary force behind Highbrook Business Park in Auckland, where he has been able to establish an award-winning park of business, environmental, and lifestyle needs.

So it is great that Labour is supporting the new owner. When Mr Hughes put his bill in the ballot, he would have consulted with the new owner of Paraparaumu Airport Holdings. I ask Mr Hughes whether that is so.

Darren Hughes: I don’t take my riding instructions from anybody.

NATHAN GUY: I ask whether the member did not think it appropriate to consult with the new owner about this bill. I take it from his silence that that is correct. So that is the true arrogance of that member—he had a bill in the ballot relating to the airport, the bill was drawn, and he did not even consult with the new owner.

Let us talk about looking forward to Mr Robinson’s development where, over 30 years, $700 million will be invested in Paraparaumu Airport and 5,000 skilled jobs will be created. Many of those jobs, hopefully, will support iwi as well, which I think is fantastic. They will be sustainable jobs. The other significant thing is that this airport will now be a strategic linkage between the western link road and Kapiti Road—which Mr Hughes would know about if he got out into his electorate and looked around.

Darren Hughes: I beat this member.

NATHAN GUY: That is right; the member did beat me—but he lost his majority, from 7,600 down to 300. It is the most marginal seat in the country, I tell those who are listening.

The two runways and associated aviation buildings will be placed in an airport core. The fundamental thing for members of Parliament to realise is that the new owner is proposing an airport core for the two runways. In other words, that land will be locked up for future generations to enjoy. I think that it is significant that the two runways will be locked in an airport core for future generations. The new owner has actually been out and consulted with the community, has listened to their ideas, and is keeping the second runway. It will be of a shortened length, but it will still be locked in an airport core. I think the important thing for the other side of the House to realise is that this is private investment.

The Labour Government loves to run around giving out major regional initiatives. Recently $1.9 million was given out to the apparel and textile industry in Ōtaki. Here we have $700 million being invested over 30 years in Paraparaumu Airport, and this Government, I feel, is not even supporting the present development plan from Paraparaumu Airport Holdings. Government members are running around and Trevor Mallard is having photo opportunities and giving a couple of million here and there, and here we have the biggest example of economic transformation—that is a key phrase from the Prime Minister—right under the nose of this Government, yet it seems not to be supporting it.

I am presuming that Mr Hughes gave a letter of support from the present owner when he put his case forward to the Kapiti Coast District Council, although I guess there will be silence when I ask that question. There is silence, so I presume not.

The important thing to realise about this bill is that it will hurt not only Paraparaumu Airport but also nationwide airports. Airports all around the country are concerned about that. So the next speakers need to be aware that this bill, if it goes to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, is not affecting just the airport out at Kapiti; it will have a major impact on other airports, as well.

I ask members to look at new section 3AB, “Sale of airport land must be offered to the Crown first”, to be inserted into the Airport Authorities Act by clause 5 of the bill. Here we have the Government being the first cab of the rank. It is effectively saying that the Government will have the first mortgage, and any previous owners who feel they have a claim will be like the holders of the second mortgage. So I cannot really understand that myself.

Darren Hughes: I cannot believe my luck, at this speech!

NATHAN GUY: I ask Mr Hughes to look at new section 3AC, also to be inserted by clause 5, which restricts land use to aerodrome purposes—what the member said was a “backstop” position. This is socialism at its best, is it not?

Here is the Government saying that it knows what is best. Someone like Minister Carter can come in and be able to veto any project around any sort of airport development. It was interesting that Nick Smith’s bill to do away with a veto was locked up at 60 all. So half of the House supports getting rid of the veto, and the biggest concern I have about new section 3AC is that a Minister of Transport—it could be Chris Carter, in the future—could veto any developments on any airport. I think that that is absolutely ridiculous.

The other key thing to realise concerns the article I recently saw in the National Business Review, dated 13 October. The article’s headline is “Airports get government permission to privatise”. Is that not surprising? Well, well, well! The article states that the Government is endorsing the corporatisation of airports. The two particular airports it has let go of, so to speak, are those of Hawke’s Bay and New Plymouth. It is important to realise that the Mayor of New Plymouth District, Peter Tennent, states in this article that corporatisation will enable development plans to be freely funded. So here we have the Government on the one hand wanting to privatise airports, but on the other hand wanting to have more control. So time has moved on from this bill.

The public support now around the developments of the Paraparaumu Airport is huge. I was in Coastlands when people were coming in and engaging, looking at display boards, and seeing the plan. About 500 people came in over 2½ days, and only about 12 people were opposed to the developments. So I say to Mr Hughes that time has moved on. The community is now supporting Mr Robinson’s programme of development, and I urge the member to get in behind this development, because it is an example of economic transformation. It is the sort of major regional initiative that his Government trumpets all around the place.

Let us be mindful that this is private enterprise doing what it does well. We would not see the Government stepping in, investing $750 million and creating 5,000 jobs over the next three decades, would we? For that reason National opposes this bill. The bill is illogical, it is flawed, it does not seem to have had any legal input, and I think the select committee—if the bill gets that far—will have to do a hell of a job to get it into some sort of practical state. I believe that a dark cloud will hang over the developments of Paraparaumu Airport for the next year or two if this bill gets bogged down in the select committee.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I must say that on a night like this it is rather pleasant to be in a centre party. I have already voted tonight for two National bills, and now I intend to vote for a Labour bill. Should it happen later tonight that an ACT bill comes before the House, I will vote for that bill, as well. It is nice to be able to evaluate each bill on its own merits as it comes along, and not to be driven by an ideology of the right or the left. That is where I feel comfortable.

First, I congratulate Darren Hughes on having the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot. It is always very good for members, when they put a bill in, to strike the jackpot. I am pleased that this bill has come before the House. I have listened to Nathan Guy’s speech, and I must say that some of the things he said reassure me, to some degree, about what is proposed at Paraparaumu. I must also say that I will always think of Paraparaumu Airport as an airport. I made my first flight when I was 8—I remember being as nervous as a kitten. I flew from Nelson into Paraparaumu Airport. Then I got on the bus and went down to Customhouse Quay in Wellington, where we got off at the National Airways Corporation depot. For many, many years, when I made the return trip back to Nelson, I did that in reverse. So I flew out of that airport many times before we had an airport at Rongotai.

It remains, to my mind, of strategic importance, not only to the capital city but also to the nation, that Paraparaumu Airport remains an airport. If that is what the developers have in mind—to maintain it as an operational airport—then I think they have nothing whatever to fear from this bill. However, if it becomes clear that there is a different agenda at work there, which would mean bringing to an end the airport operating as an airport, then it seems to me that they have broken, if you like, a moral obligation to make sure that that airport does stay operational going forward.

One can think of a lot of scenarios about Rongotai airport. For example, we have a massive fault line in Wellington. The airport would probably escape the ravages of global warming, but it is not very far above sea level. So for a whole lot of reasons, and given the fact that we are the capital city, it is very important that we have an alternative airport to Rongotai and maintain that position going forward. So I think the select committee should give its consideration to the issue. I see this bill as a fall-back position, which has the intent of keeping the new owners of Paraparaumu Airport honest. I fully support economic transformation, and I fully support the role of private enterprise as being irreplaceable in bringing about that transformation. I do not want to impede that process, but I hope that in this particular case we can have our cake and eat it as well. I think this matter needs to be debated.

We look forward, therefore, to seeing the bill be referred to the relevant select committee, and in due course to seeing the result of its deliberation when the bill comes back to Parliament for, hopefully, its second reading. We will be supporting the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou te Whare. I say “Kia ora” to Mr Copeland for improving the pronunciation of “Paraparaumu”.

In preparing to speak on this bill, I did a little bit of research, and I came across a letter to the Queen of England. I will share parts of this letter with the House, because they have a genuine relevance to the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill that we are considering today. The letter included the following statements: “I am declaring my Tribe’s Independent State in Whaingaroa, Aotearoa … on the 12 February 1996. The signing will take place on the 63 acres of land which was confiscated for an aerodrome during World War 2. Our village was demolished and our people made homeless by our forced contribution to the war effort. The government gave the land to the local County Council after the War, who leased it to a golf club. … over the years these lands have been taken by unjust laws passed by successive governments. We were arrested on the 12 February 1978”—I am proud to say that my mother was one of those people arrested—“during a sacred service on the burial grounds of our ancestors. Finally in 1984 some of the land, our original village site, was returned. … I can no longer sit and do nothing. … Like my ancestors, I am willing to die for my people’s freedom. It is time that we determine our own future in our own land.” The letter was signed by Tuaiwa Hautai Kereopa, who is known to this House as Eva Rickard.

Whether it is Whāingaroa, Kaitāia—our airport land was appropriated in 1941—or Paraparaumu, we have been down this road before. The land taken under the Public Works Act for Paraparaumu Airport should have been offered back to the owners rather than on-sold to developers, just as the land at Whāingaroa should have been offered back to Tainui Āwhiro rather than given to the local council for the Raglan golf course. This bill is different though, because it does at least acknowledge and involve te whānau o te ngārara, representing the interests of the former Māori owners of Paraparaumu Airport land, as well as other interested parties—both Māori and Pākehā—all of whom lost land taken under the Public Works Act for the airport.

So we are pleased to support a bill that recognises the need to look to mana whenua when dealing with land that is surplus to airport needs. But it is also important to define exactly what an airport is, so that everyone is clear about when land is no longer required for an airport, because at this very moment it seems that Paraparaumu Airport Ltd is looking to develop land for purposes that are not airport-related, which means that the rights of the local tangata whenua and other landowners, both Māori and Pākehā, are likely to be eroded even further.

The issue is still outstanding—and we cannot ignore it—in regard to the lack of protection for Māori land interests under the Public Works Act of 1981, so it is good to see that this bill may allow for a review of the sale process back in 1995. Again, the Māori Party congratulates te whānau o te ngārara for bringing attention to the need to review the airport’s ownership of the land in question. They lodged a claim with the tribunal in 1996, they occupied the airport in 1999, and they have consistently put this issue before the House. Indeed, Cabinet papers show that the Government knew of the possibility of a Treaty claim on the Paraparaumu Airport land from at least 1991.

Whether it is 16 years or 60 years, tangata whenua should not have to wait for the Government to develop a clear policy on Treaty implications for the sale of Crown-owned land. A longstanding injustice created by the original sale into private ownership is, at long last, being aired in Parliament today, but—and it is a big but—the Crown still needs to address the wrongs committed under the Public Works Act. We urge the select committee to properly review the shameful history of this case, whereby the last National Government shifted the airport land into a limited liability company, and then sold the company and its land to a private individual

Finally, the Māori Party acknowledges the support of the airport coalition, for working with te whānau o te ngārara to oppose the Crown-sponsored confiscation of their lands. In moving forward together to address this injustice they have become beacons to us all, and we will support their efforts to take this bill forward. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the first reading of the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, so that the public can have input into this particular issue.

We believe that this issue is very important. We know for a fact that the original sale of the airport in 1995 by the last National Government was another example of a sale of a strategic asset. It was sold off very cheaply, for $1.6 million, despite the community’s opposition. Of course, it was another totally unjust fire sale on the part of that National Government, and the negative reports from the Auditor-General have emphasised that point.

New Zealand First is totally opposed to the sale of strategic assets. We believe that airports and aerodromes are a key strategic asset, and that public ownership is the very best way of giving such infrastructure a future. This bill will give the Government the first option to purchase the privatised airport land once it is put up for sale, thus allowing the Government to return privatised regional airports to public ownership. In fact, the only way we can give certainty to provincial and rural aerodromes is to ensure that they continue to have an aviation use.

I recall that there was fog in Wellington on one occasion, and I had to land at Paraparaumu Airport and be bussed to Wellington. So it is a very useful asset for Air New Zealand to have access to, and for it to be able to land flights there. We in New Zealand First believe that legal safeguards are absolutely essential in order to ensure that airports fall under the Airport Authorities Act. Again, we also believe that we need to protect our strategic assets. In many cases, once those strategic assets have been sold and are gone, we can never ever get them back. Sometimes it is to New Zealand’s detriment that we never have the use of those strategic assets again. So New Zealand First will be supporting this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill, and congratulates Darren Hughes on this simple but important bill and on having it selected. The bill is common sense, but it is also really important that we should seek to retain the ownership of key strategic transport assets like airports. I mean, what a lunatic idea it was to sell off an airport, and what short-term thinking that was. Nathan Guy said the airport was sold off “quite justifiably” in the 1990s because it was not making money. What an extraordinary comment that was! By the same logic, should we sell off every road, every part of the rail network, and everything in the country that is not immediately making money? And then, when we need an airport at some point in the future and there is no land available for it, I wonder what Nathan Guy would suggest that we do then. It is the ultimate in tragic, short-term thinking.

It is almost bizarre to think that Paraparaumu Airport was sold to a private owner 10 years ago for $1.6 million, and then the private owner promptly sold enough of it to build 12 houses for $800,000. I mean, what a joke that was! Well, it is not actually a joke; it is terrible. How could we have let that happen? It was the ultimate in short-term thinking. At some time down the track, suddenly, we will turn around and say we really need an airport at Paraparaumu or wherever else it may be needed, and there will not be any land left. It is quite extraordinary not only that the last National Government allowed that key strategic asset to be sold for $1.6 million—for peanuts—but also that National members still support that short-sighted policy. Surely, the National Party would recognise that there are such things as key transport assets, and that airports would be amongst them. Surely, if we are talking about strategic assets, we have to think long term, and not think short term about whether we could sell a bit of land for 12 houses today and have no land for a key transport asset in another decade. That sort of short-term thinking has created most of the problems that we are confronting today, from climate change downwards. It is a short-term, let-us-sell-everything mentality that would sell off the family silver for a few thousand dollars, in this case.

So I thank God that Darren Hughes has had the good sense to come up with this simple but important bill, which seeks to keep airport land for aviation purposes. The bill will require airport companies that wish to sell land to first offer that land back to the Crown. We congratulate him on doing this, and we congratulate the Labour Government on having the good sense to consider airports to be key, long-term strategic assets. I can remember being on the Wellington City Council when it tried to flog off Wellington Airport—to sell our ownership in the airport. Of course, Infratil and other companies are dying to buy our airports, because not only are they key transport strategic assets but also they are highly profitable ones. All around the world, companies are dying to buy up airports and maximise their shareholder return. But surely it is more important that we consider the long-term interests of New Zealand and of our transport infrastructure, and that we seek to retain assets like airports in public ownership. Thank you.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I am looking forward to the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill coming to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I congratulate Darren Hughes on his excellent work as a local member of Parliament who is prepared to listen to his community and act on its desires and wishes. Many people have worked very hard, over many long years, seeking to get some sort of justice from a situation that everybody knows was unjust. In the last term the select committee put in a very thorough piece of work. The committee was aided by some very, very good legal brains and by people with expertise who were advisers to the committee.

This bill seeks to do something that I think National Party members should support rather than coming here tonight to say they are opposed to it. I would like National members to explain what they are opposed to in new section 3AB, “Sale of airport land must be offered to the Crown first”, inserted by clause 5. I would like the National Party to explain to the New Zealand public why that should not be the case, because this land was taken under the Public Works Act in the first place—from both Māori and Pākehā owners. The expectation of those owners was that should the land not be needed for that purpose again, it would be returned to them under the Public Works Act, or at least the offer to buy it back would be made to them.

But the device that the National Party came up with was to form companies and then pass legislation to allow them to get the land—or in the case of Paraparaumu Airport, sell it for half of what it was worth on the basis that it did not have to keep going as an airport. Can members imagine anything more crooked? I cannot, in terms of the Government doing that sort of thing.

Hon Member: Don’t talk about crooked.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: The Hansard of that member’s speech will be kindly supplied to all the people in the electorate via the good member here, Darren Hughes. Those people will see that that National member actually supports that sort of crooked behaviour and that the National Party has not learnt a thing. We went through this thoroughly, and there are all sorts of things that the National members should be ashamed of. They have a chance tonight to redeem themselves by supporting this bill.

Under the former National Government, Paraparaumu Airport was sold for a lesser value than what it would have sold for if it had been required to continue to be run as an airport. If it was not required that it continue to be run as an airport, the taxpayer would have got twice as much money back. What happened when the owners got it? The first thing they decided was that they did not need a particular bit of land, so they sold a small part of it for $800,000. The National Party thinks that is OK. Well, let us make sure that the word gets out all around New Zealand, too.

I looked at some of the Cabinet papers on Ardmore Airport and I saw that one of the National members had to be told to back off in that sale process because he was acting in a very strange way—to put it politely. National has all sorts of dirt all over its hands on this whole issue, and I cannot understand why National members would oppose the land going back to the original owners if it is no longer needed. That is what everybody understands the Public Works Act to be. I am looking forward to some convoluted explanation from the next speaker for the National Party as to why that is wrong.

Darren Hughes: You will get it!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: I will get it, because National members are used to getting highly paid lawyers to try to get them off the hook when they behave badly. They are doing it this week, they did it then, and they will keep on doing it if they ever get the chance to be in Government again. It is disgraceful.

There is an open and shut case of injustice here, and we are trying to remove that injustice. It is not as though the current owner has to give it back. The current owner can continue to do what he says he will do, and run an airport, and nobody will interfere with that. It is only if the land is no longer needed for the airport that we would look at giving some justice back to those people who lost their land. They had to go through court cases. They had to go through petitions. They had to go through occupations. They still got no justice out of the National Party. The National Party could not even spell the word, let alone understand it.

I look forward to this bill coming back to the select committee, where we can look at tidying it up. This legislation is long overdue. I give Darren Hughes another word of congratulations on being a good member of Parliament. He is prepared to take up the fight against injustice for all his constituents and stand up to the National Party, which is interested only in looking after vested interests.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): It is not good enough for us as legislators to come down to this House and give warm-feeling speeches. Our responsibility is to look at the legislation and the consequences of it. When we do that, we see that this legislation is a dud. The purpose as set out in clause 4 is to: “ensure that vital aerodromes remain operational.”, but it has some serious unintended consequences. I ask members to consider these hypothetical situations.

Consider first Auckland International Airport, which is just down the road from the previous speaker Mark Gosche’s address. That was privatised some years ago and it is an extremely profitable organisation. It owns a lot of land around Māngere and employs about 10,000 people. It needs to provide ancillary services for those people. For example, at Auckland Airport there are supermarkets and banks. Let us look at the proposed section 3AB, inserted by clause 5. It provides that where any land is no longer required for use as an aerodrome, the airport company must offer to sell the land to the Crown. But the term “aerodrome” is not defined in the Airport Authorities Act; it is defined in the Civil Aviation Act. Under the Airport Authorities Act, an airport means: “any defined area of land or water intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft;”.

I ask members to now consider this hypothetical: Auckland Airport decides to sell land to a bank or a hotel so that the bank can build a branch or the hotel company can build a hotel. Neither operation will be either wholly or partly for the movement of aircraft, nor can it be said that any such buildings will be used in connection with the airport or its administration. Is it intended that this land must be offered back to the Crown under the proposed provision? That land is certainly not an aerodrome, yet it is very important to the efficient running of the airport operation, and Mr Hughes’s bill will necessitate that it go back. [Interruption]

It is amazing. Labour members want answers to questions. They ask for answers to questions, and in their typical trade union, yobbo way, they try to drown me out. Well, let us look at proposed section 3AC, inserted by clause 5, which provides that the Minister is able to restrict land for aerodrome purposes. Again, Mr Hughes’ sloppy drafting is apparent for all to see. The heading of the section refers to aerodrome purposes, although paragraph (1) refers to aviation purposes. But what are aviation purposes? They are not defined in the Act, nor is any definition proposed in the bill.

Let us take this hypothetical. Let us consider a small regional airport that has surplus land. In order to ensure the long-term viability of the airport, it decides to lease the surplus land to commercial entities to try to obtain a return. Getting better use of the land in that way is critical to the viability of the airport. Is it seriously being suggested that the Minister could say that the airport could not do that? The land is not being used for aviation purposes but rather is leased to tenants who are using it for other than aviation purposes, yet the effect of Mr Hughes’ bill will be that the Minister will be able to put a restriction on the title deed. Why should the Minister have the power to restrict land use in those circumstances? It is simply ridiculous and could result in an airport being closed.

So it is not enough for Mr Hughes to stand up here and give one of his warm-feeling speeches. He has to drill down into the detail of the legislation. He has to read what has been drafted for him. Unfortunately that member—God help us if he is ever a Minister—has not addressed that. So there are wider implications of what appears to be a misguided effort by Mr Hughes to try to hold on to his 300-vote majority. His proposal will adversely impact on activities in the Kapiti region and have very serious economic consequences. That is why National is voting against this bill. When I consider this latest effort of Mr Hughes, I think of the old saying: “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): It is a privilege to speak in this debate. History is a wonderful thing, is it not—especially when one looks back? I think that was a landmark speech from the National member. It is one that we will take great delight in digging out from the Hansard in years to come, to quote back to him.

I say to the member, who was not in Parliament at the time, that I was approached by my very good friend and colleague Judy Keall MP, who was very concerned about the proposed sale of Paraparaumu Airport. I think that was in 1995, although it may have been in 1994. Roger Sowry was the National MP in the area at the time, and the Hon Maurice Williamson was the then Minister of Transport, responsible for the ownership of Government-owned airports such as the one at Paraparaumu. I have not flown into Paraparaumu very often, only once or twice on diversions in bad weather. The airport was largely used for training purposes and private aviation. It had a huge training workload.

The aeroclub was based at the airport. I remember three of the people involved quite distinctly. Mr Kevin Henderson, Mr Ross Sutherland, and Dr Chris Sutcliffe, who were all very active members of the aeroclub. They came to see me with regard to what they saw as the development of an absolutely unfair situation. In the then National Government’s ideology of the time—with privatisation being the sole reason for being, I think—it was decided that the airport should be privatised. It had been discovered that a prospectus had been quietly issued, advertising huge profits for the investors, and I was told by the aeroclub people of proposals with quotes that up to $40 million of land would be made available. That land was to be sold on the basis that the airport, which at that time had a full cross-runway and a main runway, was able to have its aviation area reduced. The proposal to make money out of this sale was to shorten dramatically the cross-runway and to allow the non-use for aviation purposes of a whole lot of land associated with it, which, of course, because it was in a very desirable area, could be subdivided and built on.

That prospectus, equally quietly, disappeared. Raj Thompson, who was either a reporter for or the editor of a newspaper called the Horowhenua-Kapiti Chronicle, based, I think, in Paraparaumu, interviewed me and others several times about this issue. At that time we could not find a rationale as to why the National Government of the day was selling the airport and why it had made the decision to sell land valued at $8 million for only $1.6 million—an absolute bargain to the buyer. Of course, if one is the owner of an airport and one decides not to maintain the cross-runway, so that it falls into disrepair and cannot be used, and one does not maintain, for example, the runway landing lights, then obviously the Civil Aviation Authority will eventually say the airport is unsafe for use.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A basic rule of the Standings Orders is that the debate has to be relevant. This is a first reading speech on the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill, and we cannot have a general excursus on civil aviation and the Minister’s experience of it. We really have to focus on the purpose of the bill and the mechanisms it contains for the particular purposes advanced by the member for Otaki.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will rule on the point of order. The member was addressing the bill.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: If I can help the member, I say it is useful to provide some background for the benefit of new members, so that they actually understand what happened in the period leading up to this bill. The Airports Authorities Amendment Act of 1996 was designed exactly in order to prevent this sort of nonsense from going ahead again. Ever since, we have had fights about whether an airport is an essential piece of infrastructure and about whether the land held for aviation purposes at this particular airport should have been allowed to shrink so as to liberate a whole lot of land for residential development.

The bill itself says it is absolutely clear that a number of deficiencies were not addressed. The land for Paraparaumu Airport was originally taken under the Public Works Act. It was not offered back to its original owners, who were highly aggrieved about the sale process. The local council was influenced to change its designation over industrial land in order to free it up for real estate purposes, which made an enormous amount of extra money for the investors in the airport. The investors in the airport, according to Mr Williamson’s actual requirements for sale, had to have aviation interests. We later found that one of the aviation interests was a baker who kept bread in a hangar at the airport. Another of the aviation interests of the investors was a helicopter based at Lindale Tourist and Agricultural Centre that was sometimes refuelled at the airport—not a close connection. Yet the aeroclub, which was actually able to demonstrate a quite clear aviation interest, was ruled out of the bidding process. Worse than that, the successful bidders put in a bid at that stage, saying they would bid up to $100,000 above the next-highest bidder. In other words, it was an open tender up to a certain amount, with a premium of $100,000. What sort of a shonky process was that?

I commend the member for the bill and recommend it to the House.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I thank members for their contributions, particularly Gordon Copeland, Hone Harawira, Barbara Stewart, and Sue Kedgley. Their contributions show that the House is well informed on the issues surrounding Paraparaumu Airport, and I thank them for their support. I am also grateful for the comments made by my friends and colleagues Mr Gosche and Mr Duynhoven, who gave a whole lot of history about what went on in respect of this airport. That history was probably news to a lot of National Party members, who do not seem to pay a lot of attention to what their Government was responsible for, but then get all pious about what we are trying to do to fix the issues. So I am very pleased that my colleagues were able to provide some context.

We had a lot of huffing and puffing from Mr Finlayson, who said in his maiden speech that he was not going to be into personal attacks. Nevertheless, he managed to tell members they were stupid, yobbos, and all sorts of things. But I guess a year is a long time ago, and that was when he talked in his maiden speech about his high principles—and I forgive the member for that. The member asked what on earth aviation activity was. The learned person he puts himself about this Chamber as being obviously was not listening when I specifically said I wanted the select committee to amend my bill to include the term “identified airport activity”. So it is very clear from the Airport Authorities Act what I am talking about. I hope that explanation assists the member.

I hope the explanation assists the formerly well-paid lawyer who also spent a lot of time talking about Auckland International Airport tonight. That airport was established under its own Act of Parliament, as was Wellington International Airport. Those two airports fall outside the scope of this bill because they have their own Acts of Parliament. I can only assume that the member knew that fact and was temporarily misguided in his contribution tonight. He can go out to the lobbies and check the law. So that was Mr Finlayson’s great legal contribution.

I come to Nathan Guy. What a fantastic speech he made! From my own perspective, I am very grateful to him for the comments he made. I have never heard anybody celebrating the loss of an electorate as much as that member. In a year when National won nearly every other rural seat in the country, the great farmer—the great rural man—could not even win a rural seat in the Horowhenua and Kapiti region. Most of his speech was about his almost winning the seat. Well, I have bad news for him: he lost. He is a list member. But that is all right; he still has a contribution to make, and I am glad he made a contribution, because his comments tonight were his first public comments—certainly that I am aware of—on the Paraparaumu Airport. Nathan Guy sits and waits for the wind to blow, meets all the public relations companies, gets all the arguments, and weighs everything up. I heard a lot of lines from him tonight that I have heard in other places around the traps from other companies. So it was very interesting to hear what that member had to say.

Of course, Nathan Guy did not address two of the things I asked the National Party to address. As the lead National Party speaker on the bill, I thought he would do that. He never told us whether he thought a fair price was paid in 1995 for Paraparaumu Airport. There was silence on that, so I assume he thinks it was a fair price. Secondly, he failed to tell us whether former landowners had been treated justly and fairly. There was silence on that, as well. My bill aims to give former landowners a sense of justice. It also seeks to ensure that such airports can be kept for aviation purposes.

My luck has improved even further. Maurice Williamson, the Minister at the time who was responsible for privatising Paraparaumu Airport, has just walked into the Chamber. So we have had an apologist speech from Nathan Guy tonight. It ran all the lines about the airport but did not say what he would try to do to assist aviation and give justice to former landowners. We have had a speech from Chris Finlayson, who brings two legislative books to the House for every speech he gives. But it is clear from the mistakes he made that he consulted neither of those books. Then the architect of the privatisation, who flogged off the airport for a song—$1.6 million—came into the House.

I say finally that one of the reasons I have introduced this bill is that as members of Parliament we have a responsibility to be watchdogs for the public interest. I am not prepared to simply accept assurances, based on the fact there was a stand at a shopping mall somewhere that seemed to have wowed Mr Guy so much, that there needs to be no mechanism for former landowners. I cannot do that. I have to make sure there is a proper process there, in terms of the legislation, that builds on the work of the select committee, on the observations of the Auditor-General, and on the wants, needs, and desires of the people of Kapiti to see that airport protected. That is what this bill sets out to do.

I think that airport users and the people around Kapiti will tell me what they have been telling me all along—that this bill is needed because they know something went down that was not right. If National members want to keep apologising for their 11-year mistake, they can bring it on. I will be very happy for them; I could not be happier. I promise National that I will distribute far and wide the speeches its members have given in the Chamber tonight, because those members were absolute apologists. They tried to back up what National had done in the 1990s. They did not address the key questions. They clearly have not read the bill that I have read and, indeed, written, so I tell Mr Finlayson that I know what I am talking about in that regard.

I look forward to the bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. National members will then see how strongly people support this whole approach of keeping strategic assets, and making sure that our community can use them, enjoy them, and keep them there for future use. I thank members for their comments. I am glad the bill will receive strong support in this House tonight.

This debate just sums up National’s approach to me—ripping off the taxpayer, having no concern for Māori or former landowners, and having no concern for the community’s sense of future. National can keep that approach for as long as it possibly can—I am delighted by its approach here tonight.

NATHAN GUY (National): I seek leave to table the National Business Review of October 13 2006, which features the headline: “Airports get government permission to privatise”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Airport Authorities (Sale to the Crown) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based
Representation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The bill that I have moved and am debating tonight is a bill designed to repeal those provisions of local government law that provide for separate Māori wards and constituencies in local authorities. At present the Local Electoral Act provides for an option of separate Māori wards and constituencies at district and regional council level, and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001 mandates such seats in that region. If this bill passes, it will repeal the provisions of the Local Government Act that allow there to be separatist race-based legislation, or race-based seats on councils—

Hon Dover Samuels: Have you got the support of the Māori Party to do that?

Hon TONY RYALL:—I would not think so—and also to remove the provisions of that Act in respect of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The outcome will be that there will be no racially based electoral representation in local government.

When the previous Government brought in legislation to provide for separate race-based wards in local government, the Labour Party hailed it as some sort of brave new world. Since that time not one local community has chosen to set up separate race-based seats—not one local council has chosen to have separate race-based seats. The provisions are unused, and they are already antiquated. They are not necessary, and they are divisive. Those communities that even considered having separate Māori representation soon found a complete lack of support in their communities for it, from all groups in the community, and they also found those seats divisive and completely unnecessary.

The National Party view, which we enunciated in our election policy at the last election, is that race-based representation is no longer needed in New Zealand, either at a parliamentary level or a local government level. We believe that it is divisive.

Hon Dover Samuels: That’s not what you told the Māori Party.

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, I have, actually. Everyone knows what my view on this is.

Hon Dover Samuels: You said to them: “Let’s get into bed together.”

Hon TONY RYALL: I would ask that member whether he thinks he would have needed a separate Māori ward to get elected to the council he represented.

Hon Dover Samuels: No matter what I think—it’s what you think.

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, it does matter what that Minister thinks, because he is the living embodiment of the fact that we do not need separate Māori seats to get Māori on to local authorities. That is a really important point, because that is one of the arguments that Mr Ririnui and the other liberals on the Labour side keep making about the need for separate race-based seats. They say that Māori cannot get elected to local government without dedicated seats. Well, I challenge members to tell Jacob Te Kurapa, who is on the Whakatāne District Council representing Murupara, that he would not be there without separate Māori seats—that he needs separate Māori seats. They should tell Bryan Riesterer, who is a Māori elected to a general seat on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, that he cannot be there because there should in fact be dedicated Māori seats. They should tell Tai Eru, who was elected to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council in the general—

Hon Mita Ririnui: No, he wasn’t.

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, he was. He was elected to the regional council in the general Rotorua seat, and that member knows it. He was elected originally to the Rotorua electorate of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. I must say that I omitted to say that this bill would be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, should it be passed. We think, from our side, that having separate Māori seats not only is divisive but also it limits the representation of Māori voters, for this reason. Surely the issues that concern Māori should be relevant to all the people who are elected on to local authorities, just as the concerns of other groups in the community should be relevant to them. But the accountability for Māori issues, if we have only Māori wards, is that members of councils think that only the Māori councillors need to be concerned about those issues.

Similarly, another reason we should not allow separate Māori wards is that it destroys the very important principle of equity of vote, which underpins our electoral system. Here in New Zealand we have an equity of vote—that is, the value of each vote in determining a member of Parliament is basically equal. That is why we have 55,000 in an electorate, plus or minus 10 percent, so that the vote of each of those constituents is basically equal. Each person has an equal say in getting someone elected.

But what happens when we have separate Māori wards? Let me tell members. In the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, which is the only part of New Zealand where there are separate wards—and they did not choose to have separate Māori seats in the Bay of Plenty; it was forced on them by the liberal Labour Government, which forced it on them at the last election—

Hon Mita Ririnui: No.

Hon TONY RYALL: Do not say it was not forced on them, because the Parliament passed the law to say the council had to do it, even though the council at the time had a majority not to do it. Let us see what happens to equity of vote. In the Tauranga ward of Environment Bay of Plenty—that is, a general seat—the person who only just got in, was the chairman of the Labour Party in the area. He got 11,600 votes. So that is what one needed to get elected in the Tauranga ward.

John Carter: 11,000?

Hon TONY RYALL: Eleven thousand six hundred votes; but to get elected as the Māori representative in the equivalent sort of Western Bay of Plenty area, one needed only 721 votes. Because that is what Raewyn Bennett got. So to get a representative for Tauranga, one needs 11,600 votes; to get a representative for Mauao Māori, one needs 720 votes. In Rotorua one needed 7,600 votes to get elected in the general ward. In the Okurei Māori ward, one needed only 1,700—that was for Tai Eru, a good man. He needed only 1,700 votes. So the very important principle of equity of vote is undermined by these separate Māori seats.

The fact that there is not one local authority in this country that has chosen to have separate race-based legislation, indicates that the House should support this legislation, because the provisions that I seek to repeal are unwanted, unnecessary, and divisive. If members look at the only example in the country where we do have these electorates, I ask them whether they think Māori are better served, from having these separate seats. I do not think so. Actually, what do Māori think? Do they think these are something that encourages them to vote more? If we look, for example, at the Western Bay of Plenty Māori seat, Mauao, 23 percent of the voters turned out.

John Carter: How many?

Hon TONY RYALL: Twenty-three percent, compared with, for example, 40 percent in the Rotorua general seats. So even Māori were less interested in going out and voting in those Māori seats, even though Mr Ririnui decided that they were going to be such an electoral advantage for him in the 2005 election. And look what happened! Mr Ririnui campaigned on these seats. He said to his Māori people: “I’ve given you separate representation on the regional council.” That was the centrepiece of his re-election campaign, and what did the people of Waiariki do?

John Carter: They didn’t turn out.

Hon TONY RYALL: They did not vote for him. They expressed their view on his bill, by not re-electing him to that ward.

So the National Party supports abolishing race-based seats. We think they are divisive. We do not think they are necessary. We think they are unwanted. We think that local government should be there to serve all New Zealanders, regardless of their racial background. We think it is completely unnecessary for there to be separate or dedicated wards to secure representation of Māori people on those local authorities. Because in the Bay of Plenty we have shown that competent, good people, regardless of their ethnic background, can be elected to local authorities. Just ask Jacob Te Kurapa, ask Bryan Riesterer, and ask Tai Eru about his first election.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State): I would say that tonight Tony Ryall’s greatest fear is that this bill will go to a select committee. That is his greatest fear, and I will say why. He fears that if it goes to a select committee, then he will have to front up to the people of the Bay of Plenty, who voted in favour of this legislation.

Judge Peter Trapski conducted an inquiry into Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and also into the establishment of Māori wards. You see, the member is telling only part of the story. He has a very selective memory. He also knows that over a period of 9 years prior to 2000, the people of the Bay of Plenty—the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, its councillors, all 33 iwi, the four tribal confederations, the 133 hapū—met to talk about the issue of Māori representation at a local level.

Why was that such an issue? It is simple: the Bay of Plenty at that time was the fastest growing region in the country, and Māori landowners owned 52 percent of the land available for development. Māori people in the district also owned the greatest percentage of fisheries assets in the region. Māori were the fastest-growing economic force in the region.

Mr Ryall talks about councillors, but he forgets to talk about the people—the people who should be making the decisions about the development of their areas. He also forgets to say that most of the Māori members on local authorities at the time were seconded. In the whole country Māori members made up only 5 percent of numbers on councils, and the majority of those were seconded. Yet Mr Ryall comes into this House and says that the representation is race-based. Well, he would rather that the people who own the land, the resources, and the assets had no say at local government level. That is how the man thinks. I describe this bill as “Ōrewa revisited”.

Paula Bennett: Oh!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Listen to Paula Bennett! She has been in this House only 5 minutes. She would not have a clue about the issues on the ground in the Bay of Plenty. She is a puppet to Tony Ryall’s bill.

Hon Tony Ryall: Her family’s from the Bay of Plenty.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I do not care where she is from. The people I am talking about are the ratepayers, the landowners, and the business people of the area—the people who make a difference in the area, not the people who skive around elsewhere.

It is incredible that when Tony Ryall hears the word “Māori”, he panics. I will give members an example of his panicking. Only a couple of months ago in this House he made an issue of primary health organisations in the Bay of Plenty conducting health programmes targeted at people at risk. In this case, the primary health organisations in the Bay of Plenty had targeted Māori men between the ages of 35 and 45 who were at great risk of coronary disease. The primary health organisations went out of their way to identify the people of that particular age group and ethnicity. Tony Ryall was not too concerned about the age group or the type of disease those men were at risk of; he was concerned about them being Māori—and he proved it in this House. His own view was that Indians should be considered, as well. I wonder how many Indians go into his electorate office in Te Puke? I tell members now that the answer is none. He locks the door when they walk past. That is a fact. For Tony Ryall it is not about who is right and who is wrong; it is about who is brown and who is not. That is his problem.

Hon Tony Ryall: What’s your majority in that area?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: He talks about his majority. All he is worried about is his vote. He has not once mentioned the people in the Bay of Plenty who really matter—the people who own the land. All the district councils and local authorities in the Bay of Plenty can see that further development requires Māori to free up their land. The great eastern highway between Tauranga and Whakatāne requires a lot of Māori to free up their land. The developments in Papamoa, Te Tumu, Tauranga, and Katikati require Māori to free up their land so that development can take place. Tony Ryall wants them to do that, but he does not want them to have a say in the environmental issues. He does not want them to have a say.

Hon Tony Ryall: What’s your mandate?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Would the member like to hear about my mandate? When we went to the Maungatapu school 125^th anniversary, who did they talk about? They talked about five generations of my family. Who was Tony Ryall? Someone who wandered in from Whakatāne. That is who they thought he was. [Interruption] It is incredible that during the debates we had on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill, the best contribution that “Hone” Carter could make was to tell the House that he had two Māori mokopuna.

John Carter: One.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Well, he misled the House at that time. But that gave him good reason to oppose the Bay of Plenty’s wishes. I guarantee that when his mokopuna turns 18 and becomes an adult, that mokopuna will enrol on the Māori electoral roll. I guarantee it. Even Hone Harawira will attest to that.

John Carter: You don’t even know what an electoral roll is yet.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Neither does the member by the sound of things, but I will get back to the bill.

The explanatory note of the bill is interesting. By his own words, Tony Ryall is fearful of Māori representation at local level. I say again that he has no problem with Māori freeing up their land, but he does not want them to have a say in what happens to it.

I do not have too much to say about this bill, but I think Tony Ryall should reflect on his words this evening, and also revisit the statements that were made by the communities of the Bay of Plenty when the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Bill was passing through this House. The bill itself was well debated at the select committee hearings in Whakatāne, and of the 78 submissions that were made to the select committee, 75 percent were in favour of the legislation. So what does that tell us?

Dr Richard Worth: That’s not right!

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Richard Worth should go and do his homework. That example tells me there was overwhelming support for Māori wards at that time.

I ask myself what Tony Ryall’s problem really is. His problem is with Māori. He does not like Māoris; he is fearful of them. He has gone around a corner and I have heard him utter a couple of Māori words: “Kia ora,” and “Tēnā koe.” That is all very well, but one has to be genuine with what one says.

I do not have much more to say about this shameful bill—as I shall put it. I heard Harry Duynhoven say earlier on that some people in this House have made landmark speeches. I think that Tony Ryall has made another landmark one in the expression of his great fear that Māori in some way are claiming their tino rangatiratanga—that they will have a strong voice at local government level and be a strong economic force in the region. If that is so, they will work collaboratively with all communities, particularly business communities. So I say to Mr Ryall that he should get on board, wake up, and learn what is happening in his electorate, and then maybe he will be a better person. Kia ora.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party comes to the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill—indeed, to every bill—mindful that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding document of Aotearoa. Interwoven throughout the Treaty is the significance of tino rangatiratanga—the political authority to be self-determining—which Māori share alongside indigenous peoples around the globe. The presence of tino rangatiratanga affirms our ongoing ability to be self-determining, which is essential for our survival, dignity, and well-being. That is the promise articulated in the Treaty, in that parties to the Treaty are entitled to representation in the organs of kāwanatanga governance.

This House should be well aware of the critical timing of the issue of representation, as we watch from afar the progress of the most significant international human rights instrument being negotiated across the globe, the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. To our everlasting shame, the New Zealand Government is refusing to support this declaration. In so doing it is misrepresenting tangata whenua and casting further doubt on New Zealand’s already tarnished human rights record.

Against that context we come here tonight to debate another attack against Treaty justice and the representation of tangata whenua, but this time the attack comes from the Opposition side of the House. Mr Ryall has applied the hostility of Labour and New Zealand First’s retreat from the international support for indigenous people to our own domestic situation—namely, local authorities. But the fatal flaw in Mr Ryall’s logic is that he has mistaken representation of tangata whenua as representation based on race rather than as a Treaty right and a representation on the basis of sovereign nations. No doubt the people of Tūhoe, Ngāti Awa, and Te-Whānau-a-Apanui would see themselves as such. This is an ongoing mistake that falls into the context recently described by District Court and Waitangi Tribunal judge Richard Kearney, who said: “New Zealanders generally had a staggering, almost criminal lack of understanding of Treaty issues”.

Section 19 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, which relates to the ability of the councils to establish Māori wards or constituencies, is an important model of the Treaty in action in our contemporary times. But an equally important section of that Act is section 4, which describes the principles of public confidence in, and understanding of, local electoral processes. Perhaps the member might have been better served putting his energy into that area, and developing strategies to address the “almost criminal” lack of knowledge about the implications of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, rather than getting misled into talking about matters of race. The confusion and blurring over racial matters was something that Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen observed last November when he investigated the state of Aotearoa. He described the ethnic and cultural diversity as a fact of life that should not be ignored when it came to policy. However, he warned against a narrow-minded focus on race.

I have to wonder why the constitutional significance of tangata whenua, which was recognised in the provision for Māori wards and constituencies, has been relegated to being about the race card. Whose special interests are being protected when the member and, indeed, all National members, stand in this Parliament to exert power and make policy decisions that diminish the value of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

The Māori Party believes that population-based Māori seats in local body councils represent the absolute minimum in terms of meeting Treaty obligations. I commend the Bay of Plenty Regional Council for being the first council to make such seats a reality. We believe that the Treaty partners—Māori and the Crown—should be pursuing opportunities to debate new forms of governance and other means by which we may share political power. Democracy is more than one person, one vote. Democracy is to be actively involved in the matters of one’s nation and community. Thank you.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I begin my speech by referring to this idea of race. Tony Ryall said the Local Electoral (Repeal of Race-Based Representation) Amendment Bill addresses raced-based legislation. I would like to point out to members of this House who often talk in those terms that “race” is an intellectually discredited term, and has been since the 1940s, when evolutionary scientists rejected it because race-based definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and the number of races observed depends on who is looking at them. In fact, the very word “race” came out of European exploration of the world and was an adjunct to racism.

In the face of the rejection of the concept of race by evolutionary scientists, social scientists have replaced the term “race” with the term “ethnicity”, which refers to self-identifying groups based on beliefs, shared religion, nationality, or descent. An ethnic group is a population whose members identify with each other on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry, and it is usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices.

I say that because I am sick of hearing people talk about race when such a concept is an absolute fallacy. If members go to any university, they will hear that. It is so frustrating to hear this constant rhetoric about race-based legislation when none of this legislation is about race at all, and it never has been. Legislation that supports Māori aspirations or representation is not about racism—in fact, it is the antithesis of it—in my view, it is about democracy.

I object to this legislation because it cuts across democracy. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill was brought to this House by Mita Ririnui, on the request of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Who is Tony Ryall to try to repeal that Act? I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee that heard from submitters who had advocated for years to get that legislation before the House. They got the support of the regional council, the legislation came here, we passed it, and now Tony Ryall thinks he has the right to turn around and spit in the face of all those people and this Parliament.

The Local Electoral Act provides the option to establish Māori wards and constituencies. That is a local decision. Again, who is Tony Ryall to prohibit that? He argues that no council has adopted that measure, but that just proves that this legislation is a cheap stunt. If no one has adopted it, what is the problem that he is trying to rectify? It is a cheap political stunt to bang on with the anti-Māori rhetoric that the National Party got their blip in the polls from. Frankly, most of us in this House are absolutely sick of it.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.