TOC1

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of media reports that Gordon Copeland intends to resign this afternoon from United Future. That means that the governing coalition will then command only 59 votes in the House unless it negotiates arrangements with Mr Copeland or with the Greens. In the light of that important change in the balance of voting in the House, I seek leave to ask the Prime Minister an urgent question.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Urgent Questions

Member’s Resignation—Confidence of the House

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: What assurances can she give, as the leader of the current coalition of Labour, United Future, and New Zealand First, that the Government commands a majority in this House?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): There is not such a coalition; there is a Government arrangement, put together after the last election, that rests on two confidence and supply agreements and on an abstention agreement with the Green Party. That is why the Government continues to enjoy the confidence of the House.

Questions to Ministers

Accident Compensation—Levy Rates

1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for ACC: Has she received any recent reports concerning ACC levy rates?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): Yes, I have. I have seen a report recently in which the National Party leader, John Key, claims that accident compensation levies are “rising rapidly” and “going through the roof”. Despite that claim being demonstrably wrong and deliberately misleading, Mr Key used it to justify his plans to return to the flawed policies of the 1990s and privatise accident compensation.

Hon Mark Gosche: How do today’s accident compensation levy rates compare with rates from earlier years?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The levy for the average self-employed person has come down by 6 percent, the earners rate has reduced by 7 percent, and the average employers’ levy has dropped by a massive 43 percent, since National’s costly privatisation experiment.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister seen any reports that explain why the current accident compensation scheme is so much more affordable than private schemes?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have seen a report that lists some of the higher expenses of private insurers, including marketing costs, agents’ commissions, profit loadings, and the cost of an industry regulator, all of which means that about only 60 percent of what is collected from premiums is available to meet claims, compared with nearly 90 percent under the accident compensation scheme. That leaves me wondering why National wants to go there, unless it is simply a payback to its financial backers in the insurance industry—as demonstrated by the leaked email from the Insurance Council prior to the last election.

Peter Brown: In terms of reports, is the Minister aware of the Law Commission’s report that expresses concern about the accident compensation regime that physiotherapists work under; if she is aware of it, is she pleased that Labour and New Zealand First are working together to have an independent review to address such issues?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can certainly confirm that I am pleased that that agreement was reached among Labour, Progressive, and New Zealand First as part of the confidence and supply agreement, and also that the review is on track.

Budget 2007—Corporate Tax Rate

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Why is he cutting the corporate tax rate, and why now?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sorry. The member will have to wait just one more day to find out what is in the Budget.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that his ability to pass a Budget, including a cut in the corporate tax rate, now depends on the Greens abstaining on a vote of confidence, because he has lost his majority with New Zealand First and United Future; and has the Government consulted with the Greens about their views on a billion-dollar company tax cut?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has the Minister seen on reductions in business taxation in recent years?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Since coming to office in 1999 we have introduced a raft of measures in this area, including reductions in fringe benefit tax in the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax, greater interest deductibility for companies, zero rating of GST on financial services, introducing an exemption on tax in overseas income for new migrants, and allowing high depreciation for low-value assets. We have also introduced tax concessions for the racing industry, and I note that the National Party voted against almost all of these reductions in taxation.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that reviewing the business taxation regime is part of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, and that New Zealand First has consistently lobbied the Government to reduce the current rate of corporate tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm it was a condition of our confidence and supply agreements with both New Zealand First and United Future.

Heather Roy: Does the Minister agree that it is good tax policy design to align the top personal tax rate with the company rate, and what is the logic of maintaining—in fact, widening—the differential between the company rate and the top rate of personal taxation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At a theoretical level there are advantages. Actually, very, very few countries align the top two rates, and many countries have much wider differentials than New Zealand. In Australia, for example, the differential is between 45c and 30c in the dollar.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister expect to be having discussions this afternoon with the Greens in order to ensure that the Government can rely on their support for a billion-dollar corporate tax cut, or have they promised to back Labour, no matter what?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I spend many afternoons having discussions with the Greens. I think this afternoon is not one of them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister tell the House on what conditions the Greens’ abstention on confidence and supply is based, and can he comment on whether the conditions regularly flip-flop according to the Government’s numbers, or whether it is actually based on policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The agreement is based on good faith and on working in a direction that is consistent with the policies of both parties. The Greens remain consistent even in areas where I wish they would actually change their position and support the Government. But they have always been in good faith in terms of their relationships with the current Government. We are on track, I think I can say, on a range of key issues.

Hon Bill English: Does the last answer mean that the Minister no longer believes all those sarcastic and sometimes funny things he has been saying about the Greens?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I prefer to say, funny and sometimes sarcastic.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister also confirm that the Greens’ cooperation agreement with the Government is based on a great deal more than good faith and actually includes a considerable amount of policy that is a precondition to our continued abstention on confidence and supply?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are specific references to areas around energy, sustainability, transport, and other policy areas, and the Labour-led Government and the Green Party continue to work closely together on those matters. The Government has absolutely no doubt—unlike, obviously, the National Party—about the good faith on which the Green Party works.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that, whereas at the moment his numbers to pass the Budget rely on confidence and supply agreements with both United Future and New Zealand First, by tomorrow his numbers to pass the Budget will depend on a confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, a confidence and supply agreement with United Future, and a cooperation agreement with the Greens?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We have rested on those since the last election, and that is the nature of MMP politics. The National Party has never learnt how to operate MMP politics.

Hon Bill English: What can New Zealand expect from the 2008 Budget, which the Minister has already started talking about, when in this one he was pushed into a company tax cut by United Future and savings incentives by New Zealand First, and when, clearly, in the 2008 Budget he will be pushed into all sorts of weird economic policy by the Greens?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We work carefully and closely with other political parties. The member will find out tomorrow what is actually in the Budget. Until that member learns that there are other parties in this House, he has not got the faintest hope of ever being part of a Government.

Hon Bill English: Why has the Government decided to make a cut in the company tax rate its top priority when people on the average wage used to pay 19 percent of their income as tax when he came to power, and now those people pay 22 percent of their income as tax, which means that the average tax on the average wage has gone up by about 12 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Actually, for an average wage worker with two children the tax wedge on that household is now down to the second lowest in the OECD, and is about an eighth of what it was under the National Government.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister expect to have to modify any policy immediately after the Budget because the Government’s majority now relies on the Greens abstaining from confidence and supply votes, whereas previously its effective majority relied on New Zealand First and United Future alone?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, and the last statement is incorrect. Since Taito Phillip Field left the Labour Party he is quite wrong in that regard.

Exports—Export-capable Firms

3. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to increase the number of export-capable New Zealand firms?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): The Government is supporting those firms through injecting funds into New Zealand’s global talent network, Kea. An amount of $1.8 million over 3 years will mean the expansion of a network of influential New Zealand expatriates, strengthening the links of this network back to New Zealand. and using those connections to grow the number of export-capable Kiwi firms.

Maryan Street: What support is the Government providing to new exporters?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Business Mentors New Zealand will recruit up to 100 additional people to act as mentors for exporters with support from Export Year 2007. Just like Beachheads and Kea, this programme uses a network of experienced exporters to give Kiwis a head start into exporting. I note that these policies are supported by John Key—one of the few things that he has got right. It is just a pity that Mark Blumsky and Katherine Rich keep bagging them.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister concerned about the growing number of New Zealand exporters who are heading offshore; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Heading offshore to sell one’s products is very good.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Random Checking of
Internal Marking

4. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of Bali Haque, deputy chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, on the decision to start randomly checking schools’ internal NCEA marking: “The positive is that it’s happening now.”; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes; I think the decision to pilot the random sampling of moderation of internal assessment as announced by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on 12 March is a positive move. The addition of random sampling as a further quality assurance check for current moderation systems was a response to the “post-assessment moderation” part of the 2005 review.

Katherine Rich: Why was random sampling not made part of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) moderation model 6 years ago, when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority failed to act on official advice from the Rhoades report in 2001, which noted that failing to have a decent sample of randomly selected school work would undermine the validity and reliability of the whole NCEA moderation model?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because people did not agree with the recommendation made in the Rhoades report at that time. But the same issue was picked up in 2005, and that is what is being implemented now.

Moana Mackey: What progress has been made in responding to the 2005 reviews of NCEA?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is a good question, because it is important to put each of these changes into the context of the fact that there was a major review of NCEA in 2005, and over the past 14 months I as the current Minister have been engaged in working with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education through the issues raised by that review. We have addressed about 168 recommendations to date. There are 14 that are ongoing in nature. We have made a number of changes, obviously, in the operation of NCEA, which means that it is working extremely well now, and we have been making changes in design—for example, the record of learning and results notes are clear that the internal assessment results are on line earlier, the grey-point average is no longer recorded, the profiles of expected performance have been refined, and I am about to announce in the next few weeks the last of the recommendations and how they will be addressed.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Would the Minister agree that whilst it is important in any national assessment system to have high levels of reliability, which random checking will assist, it is just as important to achieve high levels of validity, which standards-based assessment caters for somewhat better than norm-referenced assessment?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is exactly right. This standards-based assessment, of course, does provide for a more valid form of assessment than one that simply takes an aged cohort and strings it out along a bell curve.

Katherine Rich: Why did the Minister and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority fail to act on official advice, again, in 2004 to implement random sampling for the moderation of NCEA internal assessment—advice given by the State Services Commission to “improve the validity of moderation”; why is he only just now announcing a whole raft of changes to NCEA that totally contradict everything he said about NCEA since he has been the Minister?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I can just put these comments back into context for the member, who is also new to the role, as I am—that is, there was a major review in 2005 and we have been steadily working through 168 recommendations to date. Fourteen are ongoing, with the last few to be addressed in the next few weeks, and I am sure she is looking forward to those.

Katherine Rich: How come the Minister and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority have been scurrying about, implementing a pilot for random sampling to check internally assessed work for NCEA, when only 5 months ago both of them were saying that the assessment model was “robust and reliable” and there was no problem?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I can put these comments back in the context that I have to keep putting it for the member, we have been unrolling a range of recommendations since 2005. I think in fact the use of the 3 percent sample of the scripts that were coming in from borderline decisions was a robust and very useful model, but the recommendation in 2005 is that we should carry on and address random sampling, and that, of course, is what we are doing.

Katherine Rich: What context can one put his statements in so they do not look like a flip-flop, when only 5 months ago he was saying that the assessment model was “robust and reliable” and now he is implementing a pilot to demonstrate the exact opposite?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a bit strange for a member from that party to talk about flip-flops. I think that every single major policy that National has stood against over the last little while has now been flip-flopped on. So I am sure they do not want attention drawn to that. I just go back to the fact that we have been unrolling a range of recommendations since 2005. We are just about at the end of them. I know that when they are finished the member will welcome them and begin to support the NCEA. After all, Mr Bill English was one of the people who helped to introduce it.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister accept, when he is discussing the unrolling of a raft of changes to NCEA, that those changes completely contradict everything he has been saying about NCEA since he has become Minister, in particular that random sampling of marked work for internal assessment is now required, when only 5 months ago he said there was no problem and that everything was robust and reliable?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Since I have had this job I have been firmly in favour of standards-based assessment—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, is it Trevor’s fault?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —as my predecessor was, and as was Dr Nick Smith when he was in Government. I understand that the National Party has always consistently supported the notion of standards-based assessment. I am sure the current spokesperson does too, and that is why she is looking forward to the finalisation of the few remaining recommendations.

Child Abuse—Child, Youth and Family Discretion

5. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Will she be giving directions to Child, Youth and Family Services similar to the proposed police discretion not to prosecute when force is used by parents or caregivers against a child when the offence is considered to be so inconsequential there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution; if so, what is that advice?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): No, because Child, Youth and Family does not bring prosecutions—that is the role of the police. Child, Youth and Family’s role is to support families to ensure that children and young people are safe. I have confidence that social workers, although working in an often complex and difficult environment, are committed to meeting the highest standard of professional practice.

Judy Turner: Will the Minister be recommending any protocols to her department so that it can determine what was in the mind of any parent accused of using force against children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No. There is no need for those sorts of guidelines because Child, Youth and Family’s statutory role is already defined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The Act provides a definition of a child or young person in need of care and protection, as well as a definition of abuse.

Russell Fairbrother: What support does Child, Youth and Family provide for parents when action against a child by a parent or caregiver is brought to Child, Youth and Family’s attention but is considered to be so inconsequential as to require no statutory intervention?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Child, Youth and Family works closely with community services to ensure that the appropriate support referrals are made in a timely way when necessary. There is also a proactive approach of working with communities, families, and individuals to promote positive parenting through a range of inter-agency programmes.

Judy Turner: Do the guidelines used by her department focus on the amount of force used, which is not reclassified in the new amendment to section 59, or on the intention and thinking of the parent, which will be changed in today’s amendment?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member seems to be confusing section 59 of the Crimes Act, which is actually a defence against an assault charge brought by police, with the statutory role as outlined in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act.

Rodney Hide: Can the Minister confirm for the benefit of parents and, indeed, children up and down New Zealand that should the anti-smacking bill pass into legislation, a parent smacking his or her toddler will be committing an offence under the Crimes Act, irrespective of the directions to Child, Youth and Family and irrespective of whether the police decide to prosecute?

Hon RUTH DYSON: This member has also demonstrated his lack of understanding of section 59, which is a defence against an assault charge. Nothing in Sue Bradford’s bill, which Parliament will be debating later this afternoon, changes the legality or otherwise of smacking.

Health Services—Rating

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his earlier statement rating the health system 5½ out of 10, and why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): The member asked the same question on 1 May, and my reply will be the same. I mark the health system as continually improving and expanding because the Labour-Progressive Government, assisted by its support parties, has always made health investment a continuing high priority and will continue to do so. As an indication of that, the Commonwealth Fund, a highly regarded American foundation, in a report recently released, compared the New Zealand health system with that of five other higher-income nations and found our system best for patient-centred care and No. 2 for efficiency. This nails the myth about low productivity that the misinformed regularly spread.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he recall the statement of Annette King in 2004 in which she crowed that New Zealand had scored top overall place in the respected Commonwealth Fund’s survey of five developed countries’ health systems, and how does he explain the latest report, released overnight, which shows New Zealand has fallen from No. 1 to No. 2 to No. 4 over successive reports?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: One of these days, the shroud-waving Mr Ryall will find something good to say about the health system of New Zealand—

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister should address the question.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: If he wants a comparison—say, with the United States of America, which has the most developed economy in the world—I will tell him New Zealand spends one-third less per capita on its health system, for a much better result than the Americans get. When I hear Mr Ryall praising the productivity of the New Zealand health system against that, I will almost be gobsmacked by the positivity that he displays, for once in his life.

Ann Hartley: On what basis does the Government claim that the health system is continually improving and expanding, and would he like to give examples?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There are so many examples that I would not think the House would give me enough time to give them. Just a few examples are that immunisation rates are up, infant mortality is down, smoking is down, breast screening is up, mental health services are way better than they were, there are more nurses, there are more doctors, there is more transparency, there is better primary health care, there are lower doctors’ fees, there is more elective surgery, and there is a longer life expectancy—and, of course, there are more complaints from Mr Ryall.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has he seen the press statement of the Hon Pete Hodgson in which he crows that New Zealand rated second in the 2005 overall survey of health systems, and can the Minister explain how it can be that after the Government has spent an extra $4 billion each year, New Zealand’s rating has fallen year on year; what makes him think spending another $750 million on the health system tomorrow will reverse that trend?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I would have thought rating between one and four in a comparative table with Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States was pretty good news. If Mr Ryall does not believe me, he should listen to what the report says: “The U.S. can learn from what physicians have to say about practices that can lead to better management of chronic conditions and better coordination of care. Information systems in countries like Germany, New Zealand, and the U.K. enhance the ability of physicians to monitor chronic conditions and medication use. These countries also routinely employ non-physician clinicians such as nurses to assist with managing patients with chronic diseases.” This is a testament to the productivity of the New Zealand health system, and one day Mr Ryall is going to give praise where it is due, instead of being the ambulance chaser that he is.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In view of the last question by Mr Tony Ryall, is the Minister aware that only a couple of weeks ago, on radio, the Opposition spokesperson on finance, Mr English, said we needed to spend about $600 million to $700 million a year more on health just to keep pace with demand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Nothing would surprise me about the inconsistency of the Opposition. It continually asks for more spending while promising to give away even more money, which the Government then will not have to spend on the health system, as this Government has done.

Hon Tony Ryall: If it is all so good, why has New Zealand dropped from first, to second, to fourth?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: New Zealand is first in one of the six categories. It is second in another category, third in another, and equal fourth in the rest. I would have thought that one of these days that kind of record might actually get through even to Mr Ryall as being a very good performance on the world stage.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Minister of Health, Mr Hodgson, be returning from Wales, where he has been advising the Labour Party there on how to form a stable Government, and has he told the Labour Party—

Hon Annette King: Pause for laughter!

Hon Tony Ryall: I will restart the question. Will the Minister—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Would the member please just ask the question, and would the other members please have the courtesy to listen to it without intervention. Just ask the question straight.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the Minister be returning from Wales, where he has been giving advice to the Labour Party there on how to form a stable Government, and has Mr Hodgson told the Labour Party there that it too must now rely on the Greens?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As far as I know, Mr Hodgson comes back on Monday. I do know that he has been enjoying, from a distance, the silly questions that Mr Ryall asks and the very good answers that the Acting Minister is giving to him in the House.

Dr Jackie Blue: Can the Minister explain why, according to a recent international review of 25 countries—which included Australia, the United Kingdom, the USA, and most of the European Union—with a combined population of almost 1 billion people, only Poland invests less than New Zealand in cancer medicines; and is he at all concerned that New Zealanders’ access to cancer medicines could best be described as Third World?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Labour-Progressive Government, with the assistance of its support parties, has increased the investment in health by 59 percent in the period it has been in Government. It ill behoves a party that promises to give away tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders, and that would inevitably be cutting health expenditure to this country, to call for even more expenditure. If the member had a modicum of economic understanding, she would know that National’s leadership has promised it will not have that money to spend on the health system in New Zealand.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a copy of the 2004 Commonwealth Fund survey, which shows New Zealand rated as the No. 1 health system.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the Commonwealth Fund 2005 survey, which shows New Zealand with the second-best overall health system.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the latest Commonwealth Fund survey, which shows New Zealand dropping to fourth.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Cancer—Unequal Impact

7. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: What new initiatives will the Government be introducing to respond to the report Unequal Impact, which indicates that Māori women have a 25 percent higher incidence of cancer rates, which is double that of non-Māori women?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Health): One important element of this issue has been the uptake by Māori women of screening programmes provided for both breast and cervical cancer. The Government is now spending $73 million on screening programmes, which have seen mortality rates reduce for all women, including a downward trend in cervical cancer for Māori women. For example, the age-standardised cervical cancer death rate for Māori women from 1996 to 2003 decreased by 72 percent, as opposed to 35 percent for non-Māori. The Government is increasing access by Māori women to these lifesaving programmes by pilot programmes for community support services for Māori—both rural and urban—and expanding health promotion resources.

Tariana Turia: What explanation can the Minister give for BreastScreen Aotearoa’s findings that as at December 2006 coverage of all eligible women aged 50 to 69 years was 61.7 percent, while for Māori eligible women it was 41.6 percent and for Pasifika eligible women it was 41.2 percent, and what will he do about such obvious discrimination?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think I just advised the House that in relation to cervical cancer, for example, the rate of decline in incidence for Māori women is higher than that even for non-Māori women. Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates reveal a continuing improvement in the detection and treatment of cancer. Areas of New Zealand have breast cancer screening rates for Māori women of around 70 percent, which is world-leading for any indigenous population. The lessons from this success are being studied for rolling out throughout the country.

Barbara Stewart: Will the specific outcomes required of the New Zealand Cancer Control Strategy be changed to deal more effectively with the disparities and outcomes of cancer between Māori and non-Māori; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think it is fair to say that any health administration in this country would be very conscious of the needs of our Māori population. There is always an emphasis on dealing with issues that show any kind of incidence that is higher for one group of the population than for another, and I am sure that that will continue.

Dr Jackie Blue: When the Government has known about the disproportionate number of Māori females diagnosed with cancer as a result of its 2002 New Zealand health survey, when it has had a Cancer Control Strategy for 4 years, when it has had a Cancer Control Council for 3 years, and when we now have the concerning Unequal Impact report, just when can we expect the Minister’s Government to act?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the Government’s cancer control programme now has Māori representation on the Cancer Control Council and has been put into regional governance. Four district health boards, Tairāwhiti, Lakes, Northland, and Whanganui—all of which, of course, have high Māori populations—have a joint programme on better access for Māori to services, including cancer services. Inevitably we will see, as we are already, a decline in the rate of cancer, which is to be supported, for all women in this country, including our Māori women.

Tariana Turia: Despite what the Minister is saying, it is very clear that the report states the opposite, so what will the Minister do to address—as stated by the National Council of Women—the lack of Māori providers contracted to the national screening unit at a regional level, which is a gap in the current system, and what will he be doing to improve health outcomes for Māori women by ensuring more resources are allocated to the regions?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not think there has been a Government in living memory that has provided more assistance to the health system, and for our Māori population in particular. But I have to say that there is an issue of concern for Māori, and that is the rate of smoking by Māori women, which is higher than that for other women. This Government is helping to reduce the incidence of smoking by continuing to expand programmes for Māori women, but we cannot do it on our own. We need the back-up of whānau and leadership by Māori women to encourage them to care for their own health. But the good news is that 74 percent of Māori households formerly with smokers and children are now smoke-free. That is more than the 68 percent for non-Māori households. This shows me—and I think anyone who wants to look objectively at this issue will agree—that Māori are taking these issues seriously.

Tariana Turia: Acknowledging that Māori are taking these issues seriously—despite the attempt to blame them for the situation they are in—and knowing that the national screening unit’s two key priorities for 2007 and 2008 are reducing inequalities and improving quality, what action has the Minister taken to respond to the urgent recommendation made by Dr Beverley Lawton of the Cancer Control Council in November 2006 to consult Māori and disadvantaged groups now to ensure maximum impact?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think that all the information I have given the House today would indicate that this Government takes the health status of Māori in this population—as well as that of everyone else, of course—very seriously indeed. I just have to say that the Māori I know across New Zealand are taking active responsibility for their own health. They are not in grievance mode, continually suggesting that somebody else is to blame. They are taking responsibility for their own health, and I applaud them for it.

Tariana Turia: What is the Minister’s response to the statement yesterday from Professor Ron Jones of National Women’s Hospital in Auckland that the Government’s decision not to fund the new cervical cancer vaccine is a real tragedy, particularly for Māori and Pacific women who are under-represented in the screening programme and consequently have disproportionately high rates of the disease?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not know whether the member is aware of it, but the Government has prioritised vaccination, particularly for young Māori. Meningococcal disease, for example, has been given funding of $200 million. One of the most important immunisation schemes in the world—

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are talking about the wrong issue here. I am asking about cancer screening.

Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister could just perhaps be allowed to finish addressing the question that was asked.

Hon Member: Forget the commercial.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Well, I am putting it in the context of this Government’s commitment to vaccination. In funding new vaccines this year, the top priority was Prevnar, a vaccination for meningococcal disease. The Government is keeping a close eye on international developments in human papilloma virus vaccines, such as Gardasil. These vaccines will protect against the cervical cancer virus and, as funding comes on stream, more vaccination programmes such as this will be implemented. But it is a bit rich, I think, to criticise this Government for doing more than any other Government because it is not doing even more still—which it is, of course, in its programmes.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Places

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Will there be a place available in an early childhood centre offering 20 free hours for all of the 92,000 eligible 3 and 4-year-olds on 1 July 2007; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): The Labour-Progressive Government has provided funding for 20 hours’ free early childhood education for up to 92,000 2 and 3-year-olds currently enrolled in teacher-led centres. I am optimistic that on 1 July we will have a good range of centres offering free early childhood education. I am equally optimistic that over a period of time from then on we will see—just as in the case of the primary health organisations—more and more centres taking up the Government’s offer of funding. What I think New Zealanders need to know, however, is whether the National Party will scrap this policy if it ever has a chance to do so, or whether it will come clean, run a flip-flop, and say that it now supports it.

Katherine Rich: If parents of the 92,000 3 and 4-year-olds the Minister says will benefit from this policy turn up and demand 20 hours’ free on 1 July 2007, can he confirm that his own officials have told him that there is no way there will be spaces nationally for all those children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It may be useful for me to just remind the member how this actually takes place. People do not just turn up on 1 July. People fill out an attestation form and take it along to their early childhood centre. There are currently 259,000 forms on order all around the country, so they will have lots to choose from. They take that form along to the centre. The centre then passes that on to the Ministry of Education to register the number of parents it wants funded for 20 hours’ free, and that is how the centre gets the money.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has seen any reports at all proposing that the policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education be abolished?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that by now the whole country is on tenterhooks waiting for the National Party to finally come clean and announce that what is on its website is in fact its policy, or—just like some ongoing soap opera—that this will be the latest of its flip-flops.

Katherine Rich: Does it concern the Minister that the Ministry of Education’s own modelling shows that in one scenario 72 percent of areas will not have enough places for the extra children, under the 20 free hours policy, with Wellington, Canterbury, and Auckland being the regions most at risk; and why does he wax lyrical about handing out 259,000 forms when there are supposedly only 92,000 places, which his officials say cannot be filled?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I want to stress to the member that I am not handing out 259,000 forms; the early childhood centres are ordering those forms, which shows how high the interest is. I refer the member to the fact that she is looking at modelling that shows the growth in early childhood. When we started this policy of 20 hours free, 86,000 3 and 4-year-olds were in early childhood centres; there are now 92,000. At the end of this policy in 2012, when we have rolled out all of the numbers of trained teachers and have built a whole range of new centres, there will be a whole lot more 3 and 4-year-olds in early childhood centres. Is it not a fantastic policy? The member should try agreeing with it.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister continue to promote the 92,000 figure when having access to 20 free hours is not the same as actually getting it, and when his own officials tell him that “Northland, Gisborne, the West Coast, Southland, and Tasman are the regions with the highest proportions of areas not offering ECE” and “Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington regions will have the highest proportions of areas that cannot fully cater to the expected demand of 20 hours free”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I welcome the member’s concern for this policy. It is a policy that, just like the primary health organisation policy, will roll out from 1 July. I am sure the National Party will back it, because it wants to have 20 hours’ free early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds up and down the country. That is what the Government is committed to doing.

Katherine Rich: If the parents of all those 92,000 3 and 4-year-olds take the Minister’s advice, go down to their centres, and enrol, will there be spaces for all those kids or not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has provided funding for 92,000 3 and 4-year-olds in early childhood centres all across the country. Because that is the number of kids who are currently enrolled, if all of those centres take up the Government’s offer then all those kids will have a place.

Energy—Renewable Energy Deployment

9. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Energy: What reports, if any, has he received on advances in the deployment of renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Today the Environmental Risk Management Authority announced its decision to allow petrol blends including bio-ethanol to be sold in single-skin tanks. The Government welcomes this decision. It lowers the cost of introducing biofuels. It is good for consumers’ pockets. It is good news for the environment, motorists, and oil companies, and it is another step towards a more sustainable, carbon-neutral future.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Has the Minister received any further reports on advances in the deployment of renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yesterday it was announced that the Environment Court has given the green light to Meridian Energy’s proposed Mākara wind farm development. The wind farm is expected to produce enough power to meet most of Wellington’s domestic power needs. The Labour-led Government got wind power off the ground in New Zealand with its ground-breaking Projects to Reduce Emissions programme. This undoubtedly brought forward the deployment of wind power in New Zealand by many, many years.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the average age of New Zealand’s domestic vehicle fleet is 11 years, and that vehicles over 7 years old cannot run on blends of which more than 5 percent is ethanol, meaning that most of New Zealand’s vehicle fleet cannot run on ethanol blends?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is, obviously, recent news to that member, but it has long been known that there are technological limitations on the fleet’s catering for blends with a high percentage of ethanol. That is why the initial target has been set at 3.4 percent, which all vehicles can cope with.

Madam SPEAKER: It is very difficult to hear.

Peter Brown: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer, where he seemed to be putting the emphasis totally on renewable energy sources, will he explain—because confusing messages are coming out—where the Government sees gas and oil exploration, and what importance the Government attaches to it?

Hon Member: Underground.

Hon DAVID PARKER: One of my colleagues quipped “Underground.” But I note that having a biofuels target of 3.4 percent is hardly an exclusive focus on renewables. I would also say that the Government acknowledges a continuing role for thermal fuels, both in transport and in electricity generation, for some time to come. None the less, we clearly believe there is potential for more renewables, particularly in electricity generation but also progressively in transport.

Benefits—Debt Increase Since 1999

10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why has he allowed benefit debt to increase to three-quarters of a billion dollars, which is a 65 percent increase since 1999?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member will be aware that in 1999 this Government inherited a benefit debt of $450 million from the previous National Government. I can inform the member that the amount is increasing at the same rate as it was when National was in Government. The member will be fully aware that the reason for this is that the Government does not write off debt as the private sector does. I can advise the member, however, that the amount of debt being established under a Labour-led Government, excluding recoverable assistance, has fallen from 1.61 percent of total benefit expenditure in 2001-02 to 1.29 percent of total benefit expenditure in 2005-06. I can also advise that the amount of debt being recovered per year currently stands at $261 million.

Judith Collins: How much of the $750 million debt is due to fraud and abuse of the benefit system, as opposed to overpayments?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Because of the way that the debt balance is collected, I cannot provide the member with that information at this time. I will be able to do so in the new year. But it is quite important to reinforce the statement I have made to the member on a number of occasions in this House that the ministry has an absolutely zero-tolerance attitude to fraud. It is equally important to point out that a large proportion of this debt is in fact recoverable debt, and that, unlike that member’s party, this Government remains committed to assisting people in need.

Steve Chadwick: What success has the ministry had in reducing the amount of benefit fraud?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can advise the House that there is much less benefit fraud today than there has been in previous years. The number of allegations of benefit fraud has fallen by over 36—

Hon Bill English: You’ve just told us you couldn’t tell.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I tell Mr English that I am about to tell him, if he would listen. The number of allegations of benefit fraud has fallen by over 36 percent over the last 6 years. Investigations are finding that fewer fraud cases are occurring. The number of prosecutions for fraud has consequently reduced, and the amount of overpayment occurring, which includes cases of fraud, has reduced considerably. This is in large part due to the success of the benefit integrity services section of the ministry.

Judith Collins: Why does the Minister not know just how much of the $750 million owed by working-age beneficiaries—that is, $2,800 per each working-age beneficiary—is due to fraud and how much is due to overpayments?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can give some detail that will assist the member. In that debt portfolio, 62 percent of clients have a debt less than $1,000, and 90 percent owe less than $5,000, but the ministry’s systems do not retain individual debt balances for each instance of debt established. This does not mean we do not know how much a person owes, or that the ministry cannot or does not recover the money. Because transactions are applied to a consolidated debt balance, it is not possible at present to use current system data—systems inherited from National, I add—to determine the value of debt owed by a specific category of debt.

Judith Collins: How does the Minister propose fixing the problem, when he does not know how he ended up with $750 million of debt?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I know how I ended up with the problem, and the reason for it is sitting over there! But I can tell the House that the enhancements necessary—

Judith Collins: Is it acceptable for a ministry that spends $16 billion to have three-quarters of a billion dollars owed to it, and for the Minister to have no clue how that debt was incurred—other than to personally abuse members of this House—and how will he ever get it paid back?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Well, I am very pleased with the level of recovery, which will continue. But let me reinforce for that member that this Government, unlike the Opposition, remains committed to assisting people in need. If that means people get a loan from the ministry to assist with such essential costs as emergency dental treatment, or school uniforms, or ambulance fees, or safety footwear for work, then while this Government is sitting on the Treasury benches that is what will happen.

Judith Collins: Given that answer from the Minister, perhaps he would like to now explain to us how much of the debt is due to fraud and how much of it is due to benefit overpayment—given that he is so confident as to how the money is spent?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have already answered that question in my earlier answer.

Gambling Act—Restriction on Internet Gambling Sites

11. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Will he be seeking to strengthen legislation to further restrict internet gambling websites such as RaceO as part of his review of the Gambling Act?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: The intention of the review of the Gambling Act is to identify and address any anomalies or deficiencies in the Act. The issue of websites such as RaceO will be included in this work.

Sue Bradford: When the Minister advised the House on 27 February of this year that the Department of Internal Affairs would finish its investigation into RaceO in 4 weeks, did he envisage that I would still be able to place a bet on RaceO today, 16 May, and why exactly has nothing happened?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: My advice is that the work began on the day the website was identified in order to investigate its legal status in New Zealand. As the member will know, the legislation actually refers to the question of operating remote interactive gambling in New Zealand and also prohibits anyone in New Zealand from advertising or promoting overseas-based gambling. The issue here, and the reason why the investigation has taken longer than the anticipated month, is that some of the key principals reside outside New Zealand.

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister then suggesting that the Government is powerless to stop internationally based gambling websites like RaceO from taking the proceeds of gambling offshore and exposing vulnerable New Zealanders to all the problems associated with gambling at the same time that we are losing control of resources that might help mitigate some of the worst consequences of gambling?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, what the Government is saying is that there is still an investigation going on, so we do not know the answer to that question. Obviously, the intention of the review of the Gambling Act is to address any anomalies or deficiencies that arise during this investigation, as well as in the wider review.

Sue Bradford: Will there be legislation this year that will address some of the key flaws of the current Gambling Act, and will the legislation include such things as taking the distribution of pokie money out of private hands and putting it into publicly accountable mechanisms, and, for example, subjecting casinos to the Proceeds of Crime Act in situations where fraudulently obtained money is gambled away?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am advised that the Minister does expect a bill to be ready for introduction later in the year. I think that we have to await the result of the review before we speculate on what it will contain.

Te Puni Kōkiri—Confidence

12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he have confidence in Te Puni Kōkiri; if not, why not?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes, because its employees are hard-working and conscientious people.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that Te Puni Kōkiri’s Waikato regional office engaged contractors in 2006 to undertake tasks that were actually the responsibility of permanent staff members?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I cannot confirm that, but I am more than happy to come back with the information.

Dave Hereora: What reports has he received regarding the success of Te Puni Kōkiri in delivering for Māori?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I have seen several reports that Te Puni Kōkiri has been involved in, showing that more Māori are working, more Māori are moving into semi – higher skilled occupations, and more Māori are earning more.

Pita Paraone: What is his ministry doing to help address the issues raised in the Unequal Impact report, which shows Māori are 18 percent more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and nearly twice as likely as non-Māori to die from cancer, and does he believe that such figures show a failure to deal adequately with Māori health issues?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: In relation to this matter Māori have always lagged behind and this Government has committed major amounts of resources and funding to ensure that the situation gets better.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that a contract worth $85,000 was let without tender to a Michael Dreaver because of “their previous experience in the ministry.”?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That could be quite right, but the issue, as I said the other week, is quite clear. There are those people with the skill base that is needed at the time, and because of the high demand for those people who are skilled in relation to Māori development, the ministry does have a relationship with certain contractors, like other ministries have.

Hon Tau Henare: Is the Minister aware that Te Puni Kōkiri’s own annual reports show that even while Te Puni Kōkiri was increasing expenditure on staff by 58 percent, his ministry also felt the need to increase expenditure on contractors by 243 percent?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Quite certainly, as I reminded that member before, expenditure on departmental contractors and consultants has decreased over the last 2 financial years. In 2004-05 it was $7.9 million, in 2005-06 it was $6.9 million, and in 2006-07 it is forecast to be just over $5 million.

Hon Tau Henare: Can the Minister confirm that he did not submit a bid in this year’s Budget round for increased funding for Māori Affairs for the second year in a row; and if he did, what can Māori expect from this Budget other than no tax cuts?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I would remind that member that somebody has to pay, and one thing this Government has been committed to is ensuring that education, health, and those families in need have been well catered for. I would suggest that that member open his ears and listen closely this time, same place, tomorrow.

Hon Tau Henare: Does the Minister stand by his statements to the House last year on 14 March, 17 May, 25 May, and 15 June that advocating for Māori is tiresome; if so, what new career is he looking at now that he is tired of advocating for his people?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am a hard-working Minister and I am always on the road every weekend visiting Māori around this country. I can recall that when that member was the Minister of Māori Affairs one of his great statements was that he never went out after Thursday night because he needed time at home to recuperate. This Minister keeps on going, and the results are showing. I remind that member that he is the past leader of Mauri Pacific; then he jumped over to this lot, then he went over to that lot, and then he followed Don Brash at Ōrewa, and I have to say to him: “Bye, bye, Tau.”

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it correct that there is a requirement to tender above contracts for $100,000, which contrasts with the previous administration when Mr Tau Henare, as Minister of Māori Affairs, ordered a multimillion dollar contract to Aotearoa Television network without tender?

Hon Parekura Horomia: I recall it very clearly—as a senior bureaucrat, very clearly. But what I recall more is what we have done with Māori television right now.

Madam SPEAKER: Would everybody sit down. Now would members just lower the level of intervention.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How on earth can the Minister answer that question when he was not even in the House then. It is beyond reason that he actually knows anything about what he is doing now, let alone what he was doing when I was here.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I may not have been in the House at that time but I used to visit the Minister of Māori Affairs with high-quality senior public service advice. He and I used to go fishing on Thursday nights. I would try to give him advice and he would not listen. I remind that member that Māori television has survived. It has progressed. It is the closest thing to real Kiwiana in this country, and I have something to do with it.

General Debate

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Everyone knows that members of Parliament are fair game when it comes to public scrutiny. In fact, MPs are often under the spotlight from the media, from lobby groups, from opponents and supporters alike, and sometimes even from their neighbours. The same applies to public servants, particularly to those who hold senior positions, and the scrutiny can include both their public and personal lives. We know that to be the case before we come to this House or before we take up high-profile public positions, and I have no issue with that. Most of us are hardened enough to withstand it, even though occasionally it hurts like hell when our families, who do not have the same opportunities as we have to defend themselves, are brought into the public arena. The truth is we know that, to a large extent, we have to accept that.

But I believe there is a line over which a media subculture in New Zealand has crossed, and it is epitomised by the Investigate magazine in its latest edition, published on Monday. In it was an article that made the most outrageous accusations against Labour members of Parliament, past and present, against former and serving police officers, including the Commissioner of Police, and against church leaders, business people, judges, and so on. The said story was hawked around the mainstream media by a Mr Wayne Idour, in an attempt to promote the magazine before it went on sale, and, to the credit of respectable media, they refused to print the story. I suspect that was because the wild accusations—the claims of corruption, cover-ups, and conspiracies—were not backed up by evidence. Who knows who will be in the next edition? It could be about anyone who is in this House right here today, and on any matter.

The modus operandi of that magazine is to base a story on a half-truth, and from that to build an entire menu of fantasies. There was a party in Dunedin in 1981. There was an objectionable pornographic film shown at it. The basis for the story came from information provided about the party by an unknown person. Mr Wishart said that he did not identify the informant at the time, because the informant had a sick family member. When has Mr Wishart ever given a damn about the family members of his targets? His informant was outed, and subsequently Wayne Idour has had to own up.

That man was a former police officer in Dunedin. He is the same man who was employed by the Exclusive Brethren to dig up dirt on the Prime Minister and on Labour MPs and their families. He is a proven liar. Wayne Idour lied to TV3 about working for the Brethren, and I believe he is now lying again. I believe he is lying when he says he did not take the bestiality movie to the party. I believe he lied when he said he did not show the pornographic film. I believe he lied when he said he saw Howard Broad watching it. Interestingly enough, Wayne Idour’s lawyer said on the radio this morning that the party was so long ago he wondered who could even remember it. Wayne Idour was prepared to remember it a few weeks ago, even if he cannot today. The reason I believe he has lied is that people are now coming forward to speak publicly on this issue. They do not have to; they have chosen to—people like former police officer Peter Gibbons, who is held in high regard in Dunedin. He has a very clear recollection that Mr Idour brought the pornographic movie to the party and showed it.

That has been backed up by information I have received today from a serving police officer who is prepared to put his name to it. This is what he had to say: “Last night watching the late news on TV3 I saw an article relating to our Commissioner and ex Sergeant Idour. I started work in Dunedin in 1985, and after 2 years I was acting as a relieving photographer for Dunedin. I was relieving in photography just prior to the new Sale of Liquor Act 1989 being introduced. At that time Sgt Idour was the Team Policing Sergeant. He had been tasked to deliver training to both the Police Staff and the Hotel owners on the new Act. He approached me as a photographer wanting to put together a video training tape. He had in his possession two tapes, one being a pornographic one … and the other was his training tape. His request was that I ‘dub’ ”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call—

Hon ANNETTE KING: This man is well known for his ownership of such tapes and his constant reference to the material.

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will pull back from the point of order. I was just worried that you were not going to sit that speaker down.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): I seek leave to table that email from a serving police officer, which states that Mr Idour is a man well known for his ownership of, and constant reference to, pornographic material.

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): The fact that the Government spends the day before the Budget attacking some non-entity no one knows shows how that Government has lost its way and its will to govern. Government members cannot even talk up their own Budget on the day before it is presented

The reason is that in the next week or so this House will see something it has never seen before: a Budget passed by a minority of votes in this House. That is what will happen, and it has never happened before. Even in 1998 and 1999 the National Government, when it was having the same experience this Government is now having, still had a majority of the House voting for the confidence and supply motion. When that motion comes to this House in the next 2 weeks, a minority of this House will vote for it.

Interestingly, that simply reflects the loss of confidence of the public in this Government. It certainly shows the loss of confidence in the House. But, in fact, the House is trailing the public, whose confidence has been lost. Let us see what has happened to the Government’s numbers since the beginning of the year.

Chris Auchinvole: What happened?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: On 1 January the Government had 61 votes tied up in two confidence and supply agreements out of 121 votes. On St Valentine’s Day, Phillip Field left the Government. The confidence and supply numbers were down to 60—technically a minority Government. Gordon Copeland is leaving today. That takes the number down to 59.

But that is just the start. Judy Turner will almost certainly leave United Future and join Copeland’s new party, because that is where her voters are. She has no future in United Future because it does not have much of a future outside of Peter Dunne. That will take the number down to 58. What will Peter Dunne then do, marooned by himself as a one-man party supporting a Government that his electorate will certainly want out of power? He could end up going with it. He will not stay in his confidence and supply agreement of one.

Then what will happen to New Zealand First? New Zealand First will then be left as the one conservative party supporting a left-wing Government that is polling in the low thirties. Winston Peters has many faults, but one of them is not stupidity about suicide. He knows where that is going.

This Government is unravelling as we watch. It will be putting a Budget to this House that will not command a majority. Why will it not command a majority? It is because the Government of New Zealand now depends on a party that will not vote. The Greens’ agreement with Labour is to abstain on motions of confidence and supply. The Labour-led Government—the Government of New Zealand—is now, as of Gordon Copeland’s resignation from United Future, dependent on that agreement with the Greens. Do the Greens support a $1 billion company tax cut? Would they have allowed it to happen if they had the swing votes in the run-up to the Budget? No.

This is a Government that will pass a Budget when it does not have a parliamentary or public mandate to do it, and that is a fact. It does not matter how confident Helen Clark sounds, it does not matter how many articles are written about her being the most competent Prime Minister ever, because she has lost her majority in the House. It has gone. She is now dependent on the Greens, who will not vote—

Hon Member: Nandor!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —on Nandor Tanczos, and Phillip Field. What will happen after this Budget is that the Greens will get their long-awaited opportunity. They have been patient and their time has come.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): That was the deputy leader of the National Party, the man who said today—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Politics colleagues, as we all know, is the art of the possible. The possible we will explore today is good order.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I take it that the clock starts now. That was the deputy leader of the National Party. He is the finance spokesperson and the so-called expert on numbers. The man who said that today the Government lost its majority demonstrated one thing—he has no idea about MMP because this has been a minority Government since being elected. Yet that was his speech.

Darren Hughes: He’s pretty good on numbers!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says he is great on numbers. Bill English is the man, of course, who blew apart the 2002 election. We remember those numbers. This is the man who did the numbers for himself, miscounted, and got knifed by Don Brash. And this is the man, of course, who then rekindled the numbers to put Don Brash out of his misery and install John Key.

This is the deputy leader leading a front bench of mediocrity. To quote half an Australian saying, he leads a conga line of contradictions. He talks about tax. Tomorrow we will see a Government deliver a consistent Budget of thought out, consistent, solid policies, up against an Opposition that, as we are in the mid-term in the race to the polls, has decided that the best thing to do is to analyse the last result. Anything we did that was popular that National members were against they will adopt, and they will forget about their own policies. That man, that genius, that ex-Treasury official talks about tax.

Well, let us look and see what Mr English said about tax. On 24 April 2007 he said on Morning Report: “And we would agree the last thing it”—that is, the economy—“would need would be sweeping tax cuts.” That is what he said. Yet, not a year before, his leader paraded around the country wanting to drop $7.2 billion worth of tax cuts on the country and criticising us for the large surpluses. Then Mr English went on Mark Sainsbury’s Close Up with me and said: “Well you don’t need to cut expenditure, you just need to cut growth.” What does that mean? That man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Bill English says to one group that Government spending should be cut, when every colleague on that side of the House has a list of spending promises that those members have rolled out. National members forget that Kiwi communities are not silly—they listen, they read the newspapers, they know.

Tony Ryall says: “What we need are more places in medical schools.” There was a $350 million promise from John Key: “National will fund bulk funding, by the way, at the top rate in our schools.” John Hayes, of course, wants an increase in funding for private schools. Yet Bill English has the stupidity—[Interruption] pipe down, grandad; old “Cream Puff” in the corner there—to go on national television and try to con people. He said that the Government should cut expenditure when members of his party run around the country every day calling for masses of increases in expenditure. He said he will honour all our Government’s promises, and then some. Then he will lump in his own and then he will cut tax.

Bill English said that the gouge-out that National has admitted it will do on Working for Families will take around 80 bucks a week from families with kids. Then he said that he will put out a tax cut, of course, that will benefit those who are in the top 5 percent of income earners. Most of the people in this room are in that top 5 percent of income earners—they will get the money.

I say that Bill English, as deputy leader of the National Party, does indeed lead a conga line of contradictions, and a front bench and a party of mediocrity. But what is worse is that 18 months since the last election, and still in Opposition, the best he can do is to get up because one member has party-hopped. The best line he can come up with is to try to tell people—he assumes people are stupid—that the Government has lost its majority.

This Government has been a minority Government and has governed in stable circumstances for over 7 years. That is how good he is and how mediocre he is, and his problem is that he constantly contradicts and undermines his leader. He wants tight fiscal policy; John Key wants a loose one—and so do National members. I would ask Bill English to answer that.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That was an Associate Minister of Finance speaking in a general debate on the eve of his Government’s Budget. Could he speak in favour of one thing his Government is planning to do in the Budget—no, not one. What did he do instead? He decided to step forward to explain himself—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out to the Opposition member that one does not speak in anticipation of Budgets; one waits until they are announced. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am on my feet, Mr Brownlee. That was a frivolous interjection, which will lead to disorder. The member’s time will start again.

GERRY BROWNLEE: That was an interesting little offering to the House from Clayton Cosgrove, but I have to remind him of one thing: in politics, explaining is losing. The little explanation from over there is an explanation of why the current Government is in such a huge amount of trouble. He came along here and said: “You guys have got to wake up; we’ve been a minority Government for 7 years.” There has not been one Budget that this Government has not been able to pass with a majority, but tomorrow that is what will happen. There will be a minority of votes cast, when the Budget debate finishes, to pass the Budget, only because Green Party members have decided they are not going to vote.

I ask members to tell me who in a democracy has the right to sit in Parliament and choose not to vote. Apathy demonstrated like that is the road towards political oblivion. New Zealanders—who are fed up with this Government—will not tolerate a party that decides it will allow the Government to continue governing by choosing not to vote. That is unacceptable and the message will go to the Green Party on that.

Let us have a look at the situation Labour is in. It held on by its claws after the last election and cobbled together a deal that saw it with 61 votes. Then there was the great St Valentine’s Day manoeuvre by Phillip Field that took the votes to 60. Today Gordon Copeland will announce that he is off, and that takes them to 59. The Government is locked up in some sort of confidence and supply deal and is relying entirely on Green Party members saying they will not exercise their right to vote. That is not a recipe that gives anyone confidence that we have a Government in control, a Government leading, and a Government that knows where it is going.

Worse than that, on the day before the Budget an Associate Minister of Finance cannot even stand on the Government’s past record and tell New Zealanders that life will be better under Labour’s Government. I thought it was very interesting that the one thing Clayton Cosgrove did mention was the fact that the Government has done so much for families through Working for Families.

I thought it was amazing yesterday that the Minister of Finance stood up to say that we cannot have tax cuts because they would be wildly inflationary. I ask Mr Cosgrove to tell me, I ask Mr Cullen to tell me, and I ask any one else on the Government side of the House to tell me why it is OK to give New Zealanders a benefit in cash but not allow them to keep the money they earn by having a tax reduction in the first place. Is it the same money? Why is it not inflationary if the Government does it, but it is inflationary if an employer in the private sector pays people the money they have earned in the first place? Mr Cosgrove is sitting up the back there saying that there is an answer. He had 5 minutes this afternoon, but he could not give one.

We know now that as the days progress, the Government’s ability to do anything will lessen. My colleague Bill English is right—Judy Turner will not stay with United Future. Peter Dunne will work out that the only way he has a chance of holding the Ohariu-Belmont seat is in fact to disconnect from the Government. Winston Peters has certainly got himself in a situation where the polling has him written off, he does not have a seat, and he does not want to go down with the current Government. So we are in for a period of very, very unstable times.

I hope that successive Labour speakers will be able to say one or two things that indicate they have a bit of a plan for New Zealanders. New Zealanders are sick and tired of going nowhere, they are sick and tired of the sort of rhetoric that we got out of Clayton Cosgrove today, and they are sick and tired of Dr Cullen smarmily telling them that it is OK to have the money in his pocket but not OK to have the money in their pockets.

I think it is a fascinating situation—the Government says it is controlling inflation and allowing the economy to flourish by forcing up interest rates and making the very people who should have more disposable income pay for every little bit they get. Members should make no mistake that it is the Government’s decision to spend on the Working for Families package that has put up mortgage rates.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): That was Gerry Brownlee, who made what one would probably call a tradesman-like effort. Gerry Brownlee is a bit of an honest toiler. He comes in and makes his best endeavour at trying to defend the National Party, but, boy, did he suffer the consequences of the grand big deal! He was the deputy leader, but, suddenly, in the bat of an eyelid, he was gone—out of it—because Bill English and John Key had stitched the thing together.

I am really looking forward to the Labour Budget tomorrow. I am absolutely looking forward to it. It will be a ripper. I remember the nine miserable Budgets under the previous National Government since 1990, when I came in. I remember the miserable anti-family, anti-worker Budgets of the previous National Government. Do we remember the first one? Yes, we do. It was called the “mother of all Budgets”. We had Ruth Richardson jogging around Evans Bay in a pink tracksuit and saying this would be a magnificent, life-changing Budget. Well, it was. What did National do first? It cut people’s benefits, it cut money out of the early childhood sector, and, of course, at that time it introduced the Employment Contracts Act, which stripped away decent wages and conditions for the working people of New Zealand. It has taken ages for Labour to get those conditions back.

Of course, there was also the sale of State assets. I ask those who are not looking forward to the Budget tomorrow just to cast their minds back to those nine miserable Budgets that the previous National Government introduced. What I want to know from the National Party is where it stands on a lot of these issues, particularly in respect of the Budget. For example, I want to know where National stands on tax cuts. I would like to know. I would like anybody in the National Party to tell us. You see, we used to have the message that there would be big tax cuts, then we heard there would be little tax cuts, then we heard there would be tax cuts when the economy could afford it, and phased in over time. So I want the next speaker from National to tell the House clearly what the National Party policy is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Today!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Right now. Anybody now could do it. Anybody could give us an idea of what National’s policy is on tax cuts. Well, it is all very deathly silent over there. You see, the problem is that National members all want to spend more and cut taxes, and it cannot be done.

The reason why people do not trust National members on budgetary matters is that they do not trust them on other issues. National stood firm once, in the good old days, for things it honestly believed in. National, in the days of Holyoake and Marshall—the days when National was a true and honourable party—used to have said that it opposed Labour’s nuclear policy. Now National supports that policy. National members said they opposed Labour’s housing policy, because it was discriminatory. Now they support it. They used to oppose the student loan scheme, because it was just election bribing. Now they support it. They used to oppose KiwiSaver, because they said it was not the answer to New Zealand’s economic woes. Well, now they support it. They used to oppose the superannuation fund. Do members remember that? Now they support it. Of course, they also opposed Kyoto. Do members remember that? But now they support it.

You see, in 2005 Mr Key said that all the climate change stuff was a complete and utter hoax. Only a year later he said: “I firmly believe in climate change, and I always have.” So the real problem now, of course, is that Mr Key, having bagged Labour’s Kyoto policy, then went on to say: “Let me be clear. National will not pull out of the Kyoto protocol. We are committed to honouring our international obligations.” The problem members on this side of the House and the general population have is that if we cannot believe them on that issue, how can we believe them on tax?

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Paul Swain is the only member of the Labour Government who is smiling. On the day after the 2005 election he worked out that it would be a case of “good night, nurse” for the Labour Government and he worked out his exit strategy. He is relaxed, he knows he is going, he is not worried about what is going on in the Labour caucus any more, and he is a picture of serenity compared with the other Labour members. As Bill English said, it is not just that Labour has lost the will to govern; when one looks at some members of that caucus it looks, frankly, like some of them have lost the will to live.

We know that tomorrow the House will face the oddest of situations: a Budget will be passed not because a majority of the Parliament has confidence in the Government’s work programme but because the Greens will abstain. I find it curious—in fact, I almost think it is acceptable—that a majority of the Parliament can pass a Budget and a minority party decides to abstain in those circumstances. But it is a difficult moral question to answer when a majority of the Parliament does not want to pass a Budget, then the Greens decide to abstain on that basis. A party that holds itself to be one of principle should answer the accusation during this debate.

We know that Labour MPs are preparing for change; we are hearing it all over Wellington. Clayton Cosgrove has announced four times a review into the real estate industry, and we still have not seen a piece of paper telling us what will happen with that particular real estate review. We know he is keen—he has bought two new suits in the last 2 months, and the only person who has bought more new suits than Clayton Cosgrove is our old friend David Cunliffe. He is buying up new suits like they are going out of fashion. He thinks he is going the whole way.

Darren Hughes used to have time on his side, then along came Nathan Guy. We know that Charles Chauvel is saying secretly that he came in at the wrong time in the political cycle—that he just got it wrong. The smartest guy of all, Andrew Little, is saying: “No, thanks. I don’t want a bar of that in 2008. I might have a look at it in 2011, depending on how things are panning out, but if you think I’m coming in to go into Opposition, there is not a chance. Thanks very much, Prime Minister, take your offer elsewhere.”

Senior Ministers like Annette King, Trevor Mallard, and Steve Maharey are actually trapped, because they are looking for a way out before 2008. But they have no way out now, because they are terrified that the diplomatic posts will close up if they abandon the ship as close to the end of the election cycle as this.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m really looking for a diplomatic post!

SIMON POWER: We could think of plenty of places to send Trevor. We know that Labour members gave a big collective sigh of relief when they thought: “Oh, that’s bad news, but thank goodness Lesley Soper’s back. She’ll carry us over the line in 2008.” The fact that I have heard her speak twice since she came back through the list is beyond me.

Maryan Street and my friend Shane Jones had a shocker of an adjournment. They were led to believe that the big promotion was coming and that over the adjournment break they would be going into Cabinet. But then the Prime Minister, who has no political capital left in her caucus after the debate on section 59, had to say: “Sorry, Shane Jones and Maryan Street. There will be a few more years on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Sorry, Mr Jones. There will be more patsy questions to Michael Cullen. We just couldn’t make the promotion happen over this adjournment break.” Actually, what happened was that they just could not shift Dover Samuels. They said to him: “Time’s up, Dover Samuels, we need to bring in Shane Jones and Maryan Street.” And Dover pulled his hat down and said: “Try your best; I’m not moving.”

The real problem is that Judith Tizard is not shifting either.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, she can’t.

SIMON POWER: Well—so who is smiling? I come back to where I started. The Hon Paul Swain is smiling, because he worked it out months and months ago; he knows that all he has to do is be good enough and just hold the line long enough until 2008. As he disappears into a private life, Parliament will remember him as one of those good guys around the place who was smart enough to learn that the Government was coming to an end but did not close off his own options. Good on you, “Swainy”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that he must not use a nickname.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): What an extraordinary speech from the National member Simon Power. It showed, once again, how out of touch National members are with the ordinary concerns of ordinary New Zealanders. It was an entire speech dedicated to denigrating people on the opposite side of the House.

I think National members need to get over the fact that they lost the last election. They seem to show once again their complete misunderstanding of how MMP works—the fact that one’s party needs to work with other parties in the House. Understanding that fact might involve a few less personal attacks on those people in order to be able to work with them.

National members seem to forget that the last time they were in Government they were propped up by what can only be described as an incredibly bizarre set of people, including a member who came into this House with the Alliance as a list MP and was then happy to prop up a National-led Government. So I say to National members that they should look a bit more closely at their own backyard before they start to criticise other parties in terms of the way they work in an MMP environment.

I am looking forward to tomorrow’s Budget. I know that once again we will see more steady economic management—the kind Dr Cullen has shown over the last 7 years when he has delivered Budgets in this House. I look forward to National’s alternative Budget that combines all the spending it has been promising. Its members have all individually gone around the country promising everyone that they will pay for everything. If anyone has a gripe that something is not being paid for, and National thinks there is electoral advantage in promising to pay for it, they will do that. They will say to every group in the community: “We think it’s terrible that the Labour Government is not paying for it. Well, the National Government will.”

I want to see an alternative Budget from the National Opposition—which seems to think it should be in Government and that it is ready to be—that combines every spending promise that has been made by everyone of its MPs since the last election. I assume that all those promises have been accepted by the caucus. I assume that all those promises have been accepted by their leader, John Key. I assume National is ready to go out there and make all of these spending promises to all these groups, and that this alternative Budget will include not only all of those spending promises but the huge tax cuts that National keeps promising it will deliver.

It has gone very quiet on the Opposition side of the House and do members know why? It is because we will never see a Budget like that from National. We will never see an alternative Budget that honestly lays out what all National MPs are going around this country and telling New Zealanders. We have already seen an extraordinary number of policy U-turns by the National Party under its new leader, John Key. We have seen a U-turn on the policy for income-related rents in State housing. We have seen a U-turn on the nuclear-free policy—something that Dr Brash said would be gone by lunchtime and what he said was supported by his caucus. Now that statement is gone by lunchtime as well, and we all, apparently, agree with the nuclear-free policy.

We have seen an astounding U-turn on the Kyoto Protocol from a man who said, not that long ago, that he thought climate change was a hoax. We are about to see a huge U-turn on Labour’s interest-free student loan policy—something that the National Party at the last election said was an irresponsible bribe. Now, apparently, National will go into the next election with it as part of its policy! We are also about to see a U-turn on the KiwiSaver scheme. Again, that is something the National Party opposed; it said it thoroughly disagreed with Kiwisaver. Now the scheme is going to form a part of its policy.

As my colleague Paul Swain has pointed out, how can we trust a party and a leader who have made so many U-turns on so many issues that are meant to be core to the philosophy of the National Party? The fact is that we cannot. The fact is that National will do what National always does, which is say one thing in Opposition and then do exactly the opposite the minute it becomes the Government. That is what New Zealanders have come to expect from National.

Already we are seeing indications in the House that National is about to revert to its roots on industrial relations policy. We are getting speeches in the House saying that the Employment Contracts Act was really not that bad in hindsight. In fact, when Ruth Dyson stood here and showed how much better the Employment Relations Act has been, in terms of work stoppages and days lost, National members kept saying: “Well, yes, but in this 1 year in the ECA that we managed to find and compare to 3 months of the ERA we found that the ECA was better.”

We can argue about the semantics, but the fact is that it is a very, very scary revelation for the workers of New Zealand that the punitive Employment Contracts Act—I am sure it will be given a different name; it will be some nice, soft, fluffy name—will be back in its substantive form under a National Government. I do not think National will tell New Zealanders this before the election, because National members know it was incredibly unpopular legislation. It helped lead to a gap in wages between Australians and New Zealanders, it destroyed workers’ rights, and it destroyed the relationships between workers and employers. Under the Employment Relations Act the Labour Government has been able to substantially remove that imbalance and restore those relationships. But the National Party is so philosophically aligned to the Employment Contracts Act that we will see that legislation back.

I think that New Zealanders need to think very carefully when they hear slick John Key saying exactly what he thinks they want to hear—that is what he is good at. National will deliver something completely different because that is what it has always done.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): It says a very great deal about the state of the current Labour Government that the only excitement around this week’s Budget lies in the fact that it will be the first time a Budget has been passed by a minority of members in this House. There has normally been, in all of the time I have watched New Zealand politics, a sense of anticipation around Budget week. This is because there has normally come from the Budget a new sense of direction, at least some sense of purpose, some element of policy interest—something to reinvigorate the nation.

Over the last 8 years, what we have seen from this Government is that sense of anticipation turn into a sense of apprehension and dread. Tomorrow’s Budget will see an even greater sense of dread than has ever been the case in the past. The members of this House, as they listen to the Budget tomorrow, will know they are not listening to the real Budget. They will know that the real Budget is the deal that Michael Cullen will do between tomorrow’s reading of the Budget document and the time when there will be a vote on confidence and supply in this House. That is the time by which Michael Cullen will have to have done a deal with the Green Party—not to get the Greens to support the Government; just to get them not to vote. That is how far things have come in the fortunes of this Labour Government. The real Budget is the Budget that Michael Cullen starts to negotiate tomorrow and has to have concluded before there is a confidence vote in this House—just to get the Green Party not to vote.

Well, what a state of affairs we have arrived at. It is a state of affairs that gives none of us any great satisfaction. Although it is always nice to see another nail in the coffin of the current Labour administration, members on this side are acutely conscious of the fact that none of this is good for our country. For the remainder of this term we will increasingly be looking at the reality of a Labour-Green Government. That is something New Zealanders need to get used to. A Labour-Green Government is becoming a fact of life before our very eyes.

I say to the remaining members of the United Future party—and I am not quite sure how many of them there are—that they should note that. I say to New Zealand First members that that is the nature of the beast they will be propping up for the next 12 or 18 months: a Labour-Green Government, which will do New Zealand’s interests no good. That is fine with us, because it will be terminal for some of those parties that support the current Government. It will be bad for all of them, and that is fine with everybody on this side of the House.

In recent weeks we have seen released by the Government Statistician the migration figures for the year to March 2007, which tell us that over 36,000 New Zealanders in the past year have voted with their feet by deciding to permanently move to live in Australia. Over 700 New Zealanders a week in the year to March, according to the Government Statistician, have decided to move to Australia. That is equivalent to a city the size of Gisborne and a little bit more being wiped off the map in the space of the past 12 months, and the past fortnight has told us precisely why that is happening. We have seen on the other side of the Tasman the fifth Budget in a row to deliver tax cuts to Australians, to share the gains that have been available during a period of growth in Australia, and, most important, to leave cash in the pockets of those who can invest in Australia’s future.

What have we seen on this side of the Tasman? We have seen 8 years where we have had none of those gains shared with ordinary New Zealanders, no cash in the pockets of New Zealand businesses to invest in New Zealand’s future, and no investment being made by the Government in New Zealand’s future. Dr Skilling from the New Zealand Institute presented some chilling figures recently to show the results of those policies.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I know that members of the House have asked the Greens to justify our position on confidence and supply, and I would respond only by saying that when the Green Party makes an agreement to do something, that is what we do. It is a question of integrity, and I know that is a novel concept for some members of this House.

However, I would like to talk about something different. Like all members of this House, I recently received a book by “snail mail”. That is not a rare thing, but what was uncommon is that the author’s claim that the book is a serious and significant challenge to our justice system is borne out by reading it. I read Keith Hunter’s Trial by Trickery because, like many New Zealanders, I was concerned by the trial of Scott Watson for the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope. I make no comment about guilt or innocence, but I am convinced that serious questions about the conduct of the police investigation and the trial need to be answered.

In 2002 Bruce MacFarlane, then Deputy Attorney General of Manitoba, reviewed the issue of miscarriages of justice. He listed the conditions linked to miscarriages of justice and found four predisposing factors: public pressure, unpopular defendants, turning the process of trial into a game, and noble cause corruption—that is, persuading witnesses to alter their testimony because police believe that the person charged is guilty. He also listed eight direct causes. These were: eyewitness misidentification; police mishandling of the police investigation; inadequate disclosure by the prosecution; unreliable scientific evidence; using criminals as witnesses, such as jailhouse informants; inadequate defence work; false confessions; and misleading circumstantial evidence. He said that these factors are present throughout the Commonwealth jurisdictions.

The bulk of those causes were present in the trial of Scott Watson, according to Mr Hunter’s book. Whether or not his allegations can be sustained, there is no doubt in my mind that the book raises very significant and very serious questions, and that it deserves a response from this Government. It goes beyond this case. It is about how police investigations and trials of serious criminal cases are conducted more generally. It is particularly concerning that in the context of enormous media interest in the sexual misconduct of police officers and the closed-shop culture that goes with it, there does not seem to be a corresponding interest in the implications for the integrity of criminal convictions. The fact that Rob Pope, who is now Deputy Commissioner of Police, is at the centre of the allegations in the book makes that lack of interest more concerning.

If the Government wants to restore the confidence of New Zealanders in our justice system, especially following the Privy Council decision to quash David Bain’s convictions, then this Government must take action. Currently, once appeal rights have been exhausted, the only remaining avenue to address a miscarriage of justice is a petition to the Governor-General. That is then passed to the Minister of Justice, and the procedure for dealing with it is ad hoc and entirely unsatisfactory. New Zealand judge Sir Thomas Thorp, in his report into miscarriages of justice published just 1½ years ago, recommended establishing a body similar to the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission specifically to deal with petitions to the Governor-General in a transparent and rigorous manner that New Zealanders can have confidence in. The Green Party strongly supports that call.

SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This afternoon we have heard a lot of nonsense from the Opposition in terms of us being afraid to speak about the Budget. Well, one of the great things about power is that we have the authority, we have the credentials, and tomorrow we will lay our programme out. Tomorrow we will campaign, we will defend, and we will stand very strongly and meet all comers on the basis of the underlying principles that uphold our Budget.

Firstly, this economy has for a long time suffered a problem with savings. What did we do in the time of economic buoyancy? Dr Cullen had the presence of mind and the support of this side of the House to invest in the Cullen fund, thus laying down a very deep foundation plank. And what do we hear? Not only has Bill English decided to let the looser version of the National Party leadership, John Key, take the fall but he has also mimicked the policy. He hopes to ape his way to victory. He hopes not to put in original thought, and not to have to go out there and defend exactly what remedies National members bring, but to borrow the garb of this side of the House and try to confuse the voters.

Secondly, what did the Budgets of earlier times than this do, after we inherited a problem that is reflective of a decade-long deficit of infrastructure development? Those Budgets injected ongoing investment and promoted capital infrastructure—the very things that National chose not to do, and that we have continued to do—whilst at the same time they achieved something that is the envy of all the OECD countries. That is, net debt has gone. There is no debt. If we add the debt that exists against the assets on the balance sheet, we see there is no debt, yet we have ongoing investment in infrastructure. These are the things that voters, whether or not they care to see it fully now, will make decisions on. They will not make decisions on wild, flippant, colourful promises that Opposition members do not have to cost or go out and explain. Those members are simply trying the politics of borrowing—in fact, if they were university students, they would be up for plagiarism. That is what we have seen from them.

I will talk about some of the speakers from the other side of the House. I think it is very rich that Mr Power should be making disparaging remarks about our sartorial styles over here. He is the guy who, in the midst of a speech, doffed his own suit and immediately donned some military garb. He announced, while he was still relatively high in the pecking order, that he would ensure that if National was in Government, those members would go wherever their allies took them. Several things happened there. What he did was to demonstrate—despite all the media hype that he was the face of the future—that he was unable to represent solidly or authoritatively what the soldiers of our country would want to hear and believe in. They do not want someone who is far too young, inexperienced, and who has never had a jot of life experience in terms of being able to lead people to sign over their lives to some open-ended cheque as to where our army and our country would have gone.

What happened after that? He had the opportunity to stand as 2IC with the late departed Don Brash. He fell. He lacked either the courage or the experience. He is slightly different from Bill English. Bill English has an absence of experience, but he does have, however, the ability to wear at the same time a perpetual sense of sulkiness and a deep wound. But what Mr Power had was the ability to see that he was not really up to the task—despite the fact that he had lobbied every journalist who was disinterested in writing what the facts were to talk him up in the media when the opportunity arose. When the chalice—the cup of opportunity—was served up to him he turned and walked away. So it is very vacuous and weak that he should have a crack at Government members over these things.

We also heard from Tim Groser, who was apparently brought into the National Party to ensure that its trade credentials would grow exponentially. He was billed—presumably by himself—as superman, but he has found that he represents a type of kryptonite to his own friends. He got here and we have heard nothing from him. Mr Blumsky, my occasional fellow member of the golden oldie rugby team, we understand, is retiring to play for the dustman’s team in Wellington. This former Mayor of Wellington came in and threw it away. Who knows? The Opposition has no ideas, and therefore, no remedies.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): That speaker, Shane Jones, is apparently the future of the Labour Party. What I find most interesting about all the write-ups about that speaker is that we could just change his name to John Tamihere. We have read all the speculation before and we know exactly what came of it. If one looks at the speculation of the New Zealand Herald with the headline “Government says NO to personal tax cuts” one sees that it should have read “Government says NO to continued Labour Government”. Because this week we saw what we have not seen for 8 years, which is the leader of the National Party being the most preferred Prime Minister of New Zealand. John Key struck a chord with New Zealanders when he said that it is time that this tired, lifeless Government was put out of its misery. Today another one jumped ship—Copeland went. We know that there are some more who will probably go. Taito Phillip Field has gone.

It is 1998 all over again. Having seen what happened then, I can tell members of the House that it is happening all over again. The players in the Cabinet will be up there now trying to work out how they can cobble together this ragtag Government for a few more months before the whole thing falls apart. Because that is what is happening. No one knows whether Gordon Copeland will cast his vote for the Budget tomorrow. No one knows what his price will be. No one knows what Jeanette Fitzsimons meant by her rather obtuse question today about what the Greens were expecting from this Government. That is what the players in the Cabinet will be working on right now. I know they are, because we faced the same thing in 1998. It is insidious. It is absolutely insidious that this goes on, underlining that it is a Government that is losing its members by the month. It will not take long before the other minor parties in the coalition start to realise—

Jill Pettis: Remember the Alamein.

Hon TONY RYALL: The massively defeated former MP for Whanganui says: “Remember the Alamein.” Members should change “Alamein” to “Copeland”. Members should change “Alamein” to “Taito Phillip Field”. That is what the Labour Party will have more of in the months ahead. This is a Government that has run out of ideas. It has run out of passion for the future. The Government started the general debate on the day before the Budget with a speech about something that is absolutely unrelated to what could be the centrepiece of some recovery it is proposing. Labour has been in Government for 7½ years. It is tired. The party has the same old people. Even the Prime Minister has talked about the managed exit list of all the MPs who are not wanted. A couple of them are sitting in the cross benches over there today—Jill Pettis, who has probably been offered Niue; Fairbrother is going; Moana Mackey has been told she is on the managed exit list with the rest of them; and Ann Hartley is off as well. That sort of dismissal by the leader of a party of those soon-to-be-former members of Parliament is yet again the sort of thing that will undermine confidence in this Government.

This is a Government that has fallen in every public opinion poll this year. Labour cannot form a Government with its mates the Greens, according to any public opinion poll printed this year. This is a Government that is on the way out, because it has squandered the opportunity to make this an even greater country than it already is. The Government has overtaxed, over-regulated, and overstretched itself to try to give us a country that New Zealanders can be proud of.

It is not 600 New Zealanders a week leaving to go to Australia, as Don Brash used to talk about; it is 700 New Zealanders a week leaving this country because of the Labour Government and its lack of vision and direction and the fact that it has no hope for this country. The Labour Party is a tired bunch of people who have been trying to run this country for 7½ years and have missed the opportunity completely.

Instead of overtaxing New Zealanders for those 7½ years, why were we not letting that money stay in the pockets of hardworking New Zealanders so that they could invest in growing their businesses? This country would have been much richer today if we had.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I just want to tell the House that that was Tony Ryall, who has begun his movement to the backbench of the National Party. He is the member who was speaking. Apparently there are now three doctors on the backbench vying for his position as spokesperson on health. One of those doctors’ hopes went up in smoke. What is his name? Monica. He has gone, but I am told a couple of others are vying for the spot.

Tony Ryall did not answer the question that Paul Swain asked. Paul Swain asked the very, very good question of what National’s tax policy is today—not earlier in the year, not last month, not last week, but today. Earlier in the year National’s policy was for big tax cuts, if not for massive personal tax cuts. Then, about a month ago, it was squeezed down to being tax cuts. What is happening now? National is right back to a policy of maybe having small, graduated tax cuts at some time in the future. Do members know what I am predicting will happen tomorrow? National members will say that Dr Cullen has got it right. Maybe I am too much of an optimist. If those members are honest, they will say tomorrow that Dr Cullen has got it right. But that would be to hope for quite a lot on the part of the National Party.

I tell Dr Cullen that although I am not going to tell anyone what is in the Budget, I will say that at the end of tomorrow people will say that it is a great Labour Budget and a great Budget for New Zealand. It is a Budget that will make a difference for New Zealanders now and a long way into the future. It is the sort of Budget that will make Tories ask why they had not first put out an alternative Budget just like it. I am sorry; I am one of the old-fashioned people, and I remember carbon paper. The Tories will probably have a word-processed copy of Dr Cullen’s Budget, and they will say that that is what they would have done if they had had the chance.

As one of the members who has been around here for a while, I want to say to some of the very new members over there in the Opposition that only one poll counts. It comes up roughly every 3 years—sometimes slightly earlier. The one poll that counts is held on election day. I say to members opposite that if they keep on insulting the Māori Party in the way that they did today—and in the way that Tony Ryall did today—while Tariana Turia was asking questions, then they will not have a show. If they keep on questioning the integrity of people who have signed agreements in the way that they did today, then they will not have a show. If they continue with the sort of approach that they have taken in this House even as recently as 1½ hours ago, then they will never have the chance to put together a Government.

I will finish where Annette King started. I ask Murray McCully, who helped to organise the person for the Exclusive Brethren—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Wayne Idour.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —Wayne Idour, to spy on the Prime Minister, whether he knew at the time that Wayne Idour was the man who was splicing pornographic videos into police training videos. Did Murray McCully know that was the case when, with Exclusive Brethren money, he organised someone to spy on members on the Government side of the House? Did he know that? There is no denial—there is not a denial from the Opposition; not a word of denial from the Opposition. Did John Key know that, when he put the Exclusive Brethren and Don Brash together? Did he know about that man’s history?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: They were blue movies.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, they were Tory movies; it is the sort of approach we expect from Tories. But I have not yet heard one National member condemn that man. Not one National member has condemned that man, and all I can say is that the National members are chickens.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Speaker’s Statements

Gordon Copeland— Resignation from United Future

Madam SPEAKER: I have received the following letter, dated 16 May 2007 and addressed to the Hon Margaret Wilson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, c/o the Office of the Clerk, Parliament Buildings: “Dear Madam Speaker, I write to advise that I have today resigned from the United Future party, but will stay in Parliament as an independent member. [Standing Order 34/4]. Yours sincerely, Gordon Copeland MP.”

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I move, That the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Nearly 2 years ago my member’s bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act was drawn from the parliamentary ballot. Although I was certainly well aware of the controversial nature of the issue that the bill deals with, after facing hostile audiences when on various election platforms around the country, little did I realise back then the full extent of the difficulties that were yet to come.

I came to Parliament after many years of working for the rights of unemployed people and beneficiaries, and was very used to our groups and ourselves being seen as outcasts—koretake, blamed, and despised. I was used to being physically assaulted when on street protests and, often enough, arrested as well. However, none of that prepared me for the level of vitriol and for the ugly lies and threats cast at myself and others, simply for standing up for the right of our babies and our children to live lives free from violence.

I thought that in a country that prides itself on being a great place to bring up kids, and where people from all parts of society talk constantly of their love for children, it would be like motherhood and apple pie to work for a law change that benefits children. Instead, the debate over whether to get rid of the defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction has shown quite starkly that some people believe that the right of parents to legally beat their children is so important that they have stooped to threats of violence and other abhorrent tactics. However, it has in the end been a wonderful thing that despite the ugliness of some aspects of the public discourse, so many members of this Parliament from almost every party have chosen to support my bill in its amended form.

I acknowledge and thank all involved, from all sides of the House, for their support within this outbreak of consensus politics, and I regret, on behalf of Peter Dunne and Judy Turner, that this bill has seen their party break apart because someone called Mr Gordon Copeland is so dedicated to fighting for the right to beat children that he has abandoned his long-term allegiances.

The bill in front of us tonight fulfils my original goal of removing the defence of reasonable force, while at the same time dealing with some of the fears expressed at different times by both the Labour and National caucuses, and by some members of the public. The Labour-led amendment that came out of our select committee consideration of the bill is aimed at reassuring parents that they will not be prosecuted if they use reasonable force when doing things like putting a child in a room for time out, forcibly removing a child from danger, or restraining a child from causing damage to people or property. I am aware that some lawyers believe that this new provision may be misused as a legal defence for having hit a child as part of control, and because of this I believe that its use as a defence in future must be monitored to ensure that it is not used this way in practice.

The second significant amendment to the bill has been the one put forward just 2 weeks ago by Peter Dunne, which was agreed to by both Labour and National through John Key’s leadership. It encapsulates within the bill the long-established police discretion regarding the action they take when deciding whether to prosecute in very minor cases where there is no public interest in proceeding. This new provision simply affirms in law what is standard police practice under their existing prosecution guidelines, but I think it is useful in helping to calm some of the unnecessary fears that have been driven up by the bill’s opponents.

Neither the select committee, myself, nor anyone else supporting this bill has ever intended that all parents who ever lightly or occasionally hit their children should be subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution. What we have been simply seeking to do is remove a defence that has allowed some parents to get away with quite badly beating their children and, most significantly, that has stopped police from taking action in many situations of violence against children.

Some of the most powerful submissions to the select committee came from paediatricians, who talked about the injuries they see constantly and about how most of those injuries are inflicted in the name of child discipline. Only last week we were made all too aware of the case of the 3-year-old Ōtara boy who was killed as a result of beatings inflicted in the name of toilet training. The police officer who led the investigation, Detective Senior Sergeant Richard Middleton, said, among other things: “… what I will say is keep your hands off your kids. Don’t hit them. It’s not on. There’s no need for it.” I think it is a red-letter day when a senior police officer feels able to make such an unequivocal statement in the national media. Police, like paediatricians, see the daily consequences of what happens when people assault their kids just to teach them a lesson.

Some people say that smacking or spanking is not violence. I ask them: “What else is it? If a burly gang member, much larger than you, smacked you in the pub tonight, what would you call that?”. Some people say that the deaths of children like James Whakaruru or the little Ōtara boy have nothing to do with this bill. I say that they have everything to do with it. There is a spectrum of violence used against our babies and children, and one person’s light, occasional tap is another person’s beating or shaking to death—all in the name of so-called correction.

I have been much criticised by the bill’s opponents for my unwillingness to support the early amendment put up by Mr Chester Borrows, which attempted to define the nature and level of force that parents could legitimately use against their kids. I simply reiterate that to support any such definition would make things even worse for children, by having the State define acceptable violence and by entrenching the legal and social concept that it is OK to beat children but it is not OK to beat adults.

It is important that as we finally vote this bill into law we also look forward to what else needs doing. Law change alone is not enough. To be really effective, the bill we are passing tonight needs to be accompanied by a well-planned public information campaign that tells people the intentions and implications of the law in a way that does not make people feel frightened or guilty. The Government also needs to make an ongoing commitment to maintain and extend the SKIP programme, so that strong, clear messages about alternatives to physical discipline are available to all parents around the country.

Funding for community groups that support children, parents, and families needs to be increased. We need research on, and monitoring of, the attitudinal change that I feel sure will result from this new law—as it already has, I think, during the 2 years of public debate. The interpretations of the new law, and its implementation by the courts, police, and Child, Youth and Family, all need to be monitored well. I welcome the 2-year review that was instigated by the Minister David Benson-Pope. I also strongly recommend that the Government works closely with the relevant non-governmental organisations, following the bill’s passage, on an action plan to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved for children and families.

In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to thank some of those who have played such a critical role in championing and supporting this bill in getting it to the stage it is at tonight. An enormous number of organisations have worked tirelessly for reform over the last 2 years, including Plunket, Barnardos, Unicef, Save the Children, the Families Commission, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, EPOCH, Every Child Counts, the Body Shop, the Child Poverty Action Group, Parents Centres, and many, many others. I am sorry I cannot name them all.

Many individuals have also played a key role—people like Beth Wood, the Ritchies in Hamilton, Mike Coleman, Deborah Morris-Travers, Megan Payne, Ian Hassall, Cindy Kiro, Kaye Crowther, Robert Ludbrook, Sonja Hogan, Rhonda Pritchard, and David Kenkel. I salute all of them and apologise to all the many others I do not have time to mention tonight.

I also say a special thanks to the Reverends Anthony Dancer and Margaret Mayman, and to all the other clergy involved in hosting the moving ecumenical service that a number of us attended in the cathedral up the road a couple of weeks ago, for their assistance in mobilising Christians in support of this bill. I also acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the MPs and officials involved in the very long select committee process, including the sterling efforts of our Parliamentary Counsel Office adviser, Elizabeth Grant.

Finally, I say a huge thanks to all the MPs who stood firm in support of this bill during some fairly dark days, including Helen Clark and the Labour caucus, the entire Māori Party caucus, all my own Green Party colleagues, Peter Dunne, Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton, and Katherine Rich. Those members are all heroes in their commitment to a vision of a country where children will finally receive the same legal protection as adults. I also acknowledge the lead that John Key took in working to find a way through a seeming impasse, so that his party, too, could lend its full weight to the mana of this bill.

But, in the end, this bill is not about us here at Parliament—or, indeed, about adults at all. It is about our children, and what I believe is their God-given right to grow up secure in the love of their families, valued as equal citizens to the rest of us, and without the constant threat of legalised violence being used against them.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to support the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, which is something I, among many others, thought that I would never do. Many thought, as I did, that after failed attempts to cut a middle track through the competing and the aligned objectives of both sides of the debate with the promoter, Sue Bradford, all hope was lost for a mutually acceptable compromise. The fact is that those most scathing of finding a compromise are struck with the same malady we as politicians are consistently and frequently accused and berated for: the will to win. Members of the public chant: “Why can’t you guys sit down and negotiate?”, and now we are getting caned, so to speak, for doing just that. Although these people continually repeat the fact that 83 percent of parents believe that parents who smack their children should not be liable to prosecution, nobody has bothered to poll on the support or otherwise of the bill as it is now. That could be because nobody wants to. It could also be because not a lot of people understand the bill as it is now written, and I will talk about that shortly.

I want to cover some of the recent history of the bill and its metamorphosis from a pig’s ear into not quite a silk purse. I repeat that National’s first position was to support my amendment as drafted, but as lost through the Committee stage—and prior to that. Initially, the bill repealed section 59. After select committee hearings and consideration, it did not repeal but amended section 59. There was also a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that sought to cut a middle track and to further protect children from force that had previously been found to be reasonable in the court, even though most parents thought it was unreasonable.

Parties formed hard lines on support of the bill. We entered the Committee stage and debated through to clause 3 before John Key made approaches to Sue Bradford and Helen Clark to find some consensus. This becomes important, because clause 3 is the purpose clause, so it is the clause that prohibits reasonable force for the purpose of correction. In the clause 3 debate National wished to amend the clause to allow reasonable force for correction. Having lost that debate, National have now negotiated an amendment that seems to counter the purpose clause by offering a defence to behaviour the bill seeks to condemn. It is easy to see why people find it difficult. It is not hard to see why some people find it difficult to understand and why they can only wish that Helen Clark had been willing to talk a couple of weeks earlier. The amendment confirms that police have a discretion not to prosecute in cases of inconsequential breaches. This is important, because clause 3 as it stands creates an unlawfulness, which would not have existed had clause 3 been passed as National sought to amend it.

What the new bill does is threefold. First, it provides in law a counter to current police practice in that it confers upon an individual officer discretion—so it will be case by case—which has, up until now, been removed by the police family violence policy, which is to prosecute on every occasion. Second, it provides a defence to parents who use reasonable force for the purpose of correction in the same way as section 59 does presently, though in a more limited form. It does this by allowing a court to read widely the terms “inconsequential” and “not in the public interest”. This means that parents should not be held liable for what we would call light smacking—no parent wishes to smack a child in more than an inconsequential manner, in any event. Third, for the purpose of clarity, it should be explained that a narrow reading of the law as it is now written would see the court hold that the amendment acts only as a guide to police. This narrow reading would be inconsistent with the court’s usual interpretation in such matters. It is important to state these points now, because parliamentary debates form a secondary source in statutory interpretation, so in making these points today, in the way I am making them now, we provide another defence to parents by way of the expectation that the amendment will be used in this way.

Those parents who are worried that this legislation will criminalise lightly smacking a child can rest assured that Parliament’s intention is that this should not be the case, and if at some future time they find themselves on such a charge, they should advise counsel to research Hansard and cite these comments in their defence.

I pay tribute to John Key, who made an approach for the purpose of protecting parents. He put principle before pride. There is also the clear understanding that if this bill is misused against parents or found not to be working as intended, it will be replaced with a more explicit law. I have to say that we have received a number of emails—thousands, actually; I will never forget the day when I received a thousand emails in a day in response to this legislation—and a lot of those emails were from people who said we had far more important things to discuss than this legislation. Well, the nature of members’ bills is that they are drawn up and go into a ballot, and, having been drawn from the ballot, they come before the Parliament for discussion. I have to say right now that I find nothing more important and worthy of debate than our children, because they are the most vulnerable and the most in need of protection within our society. Having opened the debate, it was important to work through it in a consistent and logical way. Those people who would rather not debate the issue at all, or who would just relegate it to the bin, undervalue children in our society.

One of the most important things that has occurred through the course of this debate is that it has focused the attention of the broad spectrum of the public on the safety of our children, the way that we raise our children, the methods of discipline that we use, and the many, many options that are in a community, short of using corporal punishment. I applaud, for instance, the work of those involved in preparing and distributing the SKIP programme, and of those who are providing that to the community, and I applaud those who have changed their behaviour as parents and are using the programme to be far more creative in the way that they raise their young ones. I believe that the trend will continue, similar to the trend in our family. My father was probably beaten less than his father was, he smacked me less than he was smacked, I smack my children far less than I was smacked, and I hope, in turn, that they will not smack their children at all.

In any event, the reason why I moved my amendment to cut that middle ground was this: parents do use smacking in the discipline of their children. We know that the vast majority of parents in this country do not believe that it is tenable for them, acting in what they believe are the best interests of their children, to be prosecuted for that. People may argue about it as long as they like, but this bill, as it is written now, protects parents now, starting from the implementation of this bill, and will in the future.

I thank those who took part in the select committee process for their goodwill and good faith in the way that we negotiated and heard the submissions. I believe that we have ended up with legislation that is slightly less than where I wanted it to go, but—compromise being something refreshingly new to this House—I hope that we have set a bit of a benchmark and that we see a bit more of it in the future.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction): I rise in support of the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Before getting into the substance of the bill I would like to, firstly, place on record my congratulations to all the parliamentary leaders in this House who accepted the Prime Minister’s offer and worked together to reach a sensible solution, which the vast majority of members in this House accept, and perhaps in time the vast majority of the public will come to accept.

As I said in the Committee stage, leadership is not simply about being popular. It is also about doing what one believes to be right, even in the face of potential criticism. The sensible solution that has been agreed on, and is now written into this bill, has the rare virtue in politics of being popular but also fundamentally right.

I also want to place on record my firmly held belief that, despite all the hype that has surrounded this bill from before its introduction, not one member of this House does not support the underlying intention of this bill, which is to ensure that our children can live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. For me that has always been the key issue. As I said previously, I took a lot of convincing over this bill. It is no secret to both those across the House and, indeed, my colleagues in the Labour Party that I do take a more conservative stance than many in this House over these sorts of issues.

I have spoken face to face and, more important, listened to hundreds of people in my constituency of Waimakariri and all over the country about this bill. I have listened closely and taken advice from those people on all sides of the public debate. I pay tribute to those constituents of mine for having the fortitude to express their views, whether for or against the bill. I worry, though, about the few—very, very few—parents who spoke with me who felt, to quote one, that they had “a God-given right to hit their children with a cane or an implement.” I am a Catholic, an Irish one. I am not the best Catholic in the world—there is plenty of testament to that—but I have a very different interpretation of the Bible than that individual who spoke with me.

As I said previously, I am charged as a constituency MP not simply to do what is popular, but I am, after listening and discussing issues with my constituents, charged with making a judgment and doing what I believe to be right even though that may risk unpopularity or criticism. As I said in the Committee stage, when I voted against the Prostitution Reform Bill, the Civil Union Bill, and the euthanasia legislation, many of my constituents said I was right, many said I was wrong, and history will be the ultimate judge. My constituents pay me to do this job. Doing this job means listening to them, carefully considering their views, but also having the guts to make a judgment—a judgment in the best interests of all our communities, not just a judgment based on the last person one speaks to. Kiwis are, indeed, fair-minded. I respect the legitimate fears of good and decent parents up and down the country.

New section 59(4) inserted by clause 4 makes it clear that the police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints where the offence is so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with the prosecution. I have been confident all along that the police will not lay frivolous charges against decent, loving parents. Police have made these judgment calls every day of the week for years. They are trained to do so. New section 59(4) puts this beyond doubt, and, underpinned by prosecution guidelines, represents an important safeguard for parents.

The other important safeguard in this bill is new clause 6, which requires the monitoring of the effects of this legislation, and which, after 2 years, requires a review of the effects of this legislation, to ensure that it is achieving its purpose as set out in clause 3. I promoted and fought for that provision, and I am glad it has been included.

Should it turn out that the fears of those on either side of the debate around this bill are realised—the audit will make this clear—then Parliament and the public can take another look after an appropriate period of grace. Both these changes, new section 59(4) and new clause 6, provide added safeguards for parents. Both make explicit that which was always implicit. Both address the legitimate concerns of good and caring parents throughout the country who deserve reassurance that the bill will achieve its intended purpose.

Last time I spoke in this House on this bill I said that when people who have been misled by mischief-makers realise that this bill does not try to tell parents how to run their families they may tend, over time, to take a different view. There are members, of course, who made outrageous claims, and who drove people unfairly into a frenzy, and that, I think, is a shame on this House. Katherine Rich is a National member of Parliament. We often disagree. But I have respect for her. I say this: the threat made against her children during this debate was an appallingly low period in this debate. Every fair-minded Kiwi—the vast majority of Kiwis—would have seen that act as it was: appalling.

President Bill Clinton once said, and it is apt, that the “whole nature of public service is, by definition, a reflection of the nature of life. It is passing. It has seasons. It is a process, not a destination.” I am convinced that this legislation’s time has now come. I am firmly convinced—and I have reflected carefully on this legislation—that what this House is doing today will be seen in history as the right judgment, and as the right thing to do. I am convinced that the review that was insisted on and gained, and that has the support of this House, will ensure that this bill is a process and not a destination.

The signal that this House is sending today is that violence against our children is unacceptable. Having a sizable majority vote in favour of this bill ensures that a powerful message is sent to our communities loud and clear. This bill by itself will not eliminate violence from the lives of our children. We have a long way to go before we can guarantee that our children live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. However, it is a historic and necessary step along the road towards that destination.

I want, in the rare times of non-partisanship that we have in this House—times that our communities, I know, would hope would extend beyond the debate on this bill—to thank and pay tribute to members on all sides of the House, especially those members in the Justice and Electoral Committee who were at the sharp end; to those eminent persons in the Law Commission; to the officials, who often get kicked around in public life but who are there in the engine room making things happen; and to all those who contributed in a positive way to making this bill both workable and acceptable to the House and, ultimately, the public. I urge members to support it in this third reading.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I want to draw people’s attention to section 56 of the Crimes Act, not section 59. It deals with what I can or cannot do to somebody who is wrongfully trespassing on my property, possibly with criminal intent. I am allowed to use reasonable force to remove such a trespasser, but it is clearly stated in section 56 that I can do that only as long as I do “not strike or do bodily harm to that person.” In other words, the current law gives greater protection to a trespasser, possibly one with criminal intent, than it gives to our children. In a month from today that will no longer be the case.

I want to point out another anomaly in the current law. If my granddaughter were to crawl out on to the street and I were to grab her and carry her, kicking and screaming, to safety, I would not be protected under section 59. The reason is that I did not apply the reasonable force by way of correction; I did it for her safety. The same goes for the old perennial, which is putting the child who is running wild in a supermarket into a trolley. As I do not take that action by way of correction, I am not protected under section 59.

When this bill becomes law, I will be protected in both the above cases; whereas, I am not, in fact, protected now. “But hang on,” I can hear people say, “whoever got prosecuted for the sorts of behaviours you’re describing?”. The answer, of course, is that nobody got prosecuted, because the law does not deal with trivial or, should I say, inconsequential matters, which is the very point I have been trying to make since the saga of this bill began.

This bill is not about smacking. It never was. It is about our current legal framework—and the fact that the framework is far too permissive—and the levels of violence it allows to be dealt out to our children. The quality of the future we leave to our children will be determined by the quality of the children we leave to the future. Earlier today our select committee was briefed on factors that dispose people to crime. One of them was maltreatment as a child. The current legal framework, which states that it is all right to hit kids, invites the very sort of maltreatment that is associated with later criminality. The former Commissioner for Children Laurie O’Reilly told me in 1996 that we would never reduce violence against children in New Zealand unless we got rid of section 59. That is not to say there will be no more horror stories, such as Delcelia Witikā, James Whakaruru, Coral Burrows, and Lillybing, etc. We have murder laws, but murder still happens. But it will reduce the overall level of violence towards our children—of that I am convinced.

I have related to the House my personal experience when teachers were taken out from the protection of section 59. No longer did I become angry when confronted with antisocial behaviour by students. Such anger was a precursor to the delivery of corporal punishment. That is not unusual. Researcher Gabrielle Maxwell found in the early 1990s that 80 percent of physical punishment of children is carried out in anger. We have heard much about the loving smack. The reality of New Zealand children is not reflected in the phrase “the loving smack”. I recently spoke to a reporter who said she was always angry when she smacked her children, otherwise she could not have carried out the punishment.

I am therefore convinced that the passage of the bill will see a reduction of physical violence towards our children, and New Zealand will be a better place for it. However, I am equally convinced that the passage of this legislation will not see hordes of parents prosecuted for minor smacking, just as we have not seen hordes of teachers prosecuted for physically moving children to the mat. In the case of this legislation, the principles of de minimis, of constabulary discretion, and of the public good have been made explicit within the legislation itself. The advantage of the so-called amendment is that it has enabled a large majority of this House to vote in favour of the legislation. Such a majority will facilitate the public’s buying into the purpose behind the legislation and will accelerate behavioural change.

I commend the New Zealand First caucus. From the outset, back in 2002 when I submitted a repeal of section 59 bill to the ballot myself, the New Zealand First caucus has stuck staunchly by its decision to make this matter a conscience vote, and I thank my fellow caucus members for holding firmly to that position. The record will show that many of them were not convinced of the soundness of this legislation from the outset. However, members have been able to listen to the variety of arguments both for and against the legislation as it developed. Some of my colleagues are still not convinced. They believe that the amendment still leaves it up to the police to define what “inconsequential” actually is. I may disagree with them, but I respect their right to vote in accordance with their consciences.

I must admit that I am pleased that the amendment has allowed three of my colleagues who have previously opposed the legislation to vote in its favour. However, I wish to make it clear that that is not because they believe that the legislation is perfect; it is because they believe that the amended bill is better legislation than what currently exists. In one case it was the combination of the police discretion clause and the obligation to review after 2 years that has swung the vote. The same member went to members of the party hierarchy in his local area and sought their advice. They posed a question to him that asked what he would do if he had a casting vote, and he told them that he would vote for the bill because it was an improvement on the current law. By a significant majority, the party membership supported that call. Peter Brown will be voting for this legislation, but he also wishes to make it clear that he urges people to sign the petition that is currently circulating, if they are so inclined.

However, I want to extend my gratitude to Doug Woolerton, who, from the moment the bill came out of the Justice and Electoral Committee, was convinced that the legislation was right, and he has remained stalwart since that time. I say to Doug that I will always appreciate the support he has provided, because, as people will know, our futures in politics were publicly threatened by some within our party. The threats did not shake our resolve, but we certainly viewed them as serious—we still do, because it is one thing to tell people they are wrong; it is a whole different thing to prove they are wrong.

When I witnessed the vilification and abuse confronted by Sue Bradford, I sometimes felt glad I pulled my bill at the time I did, because I perceived the lack of numbers at the time. However, I must also commend the Green Party for providing such unreserved support for Sue during what must have been extremely difficult times. I would also like to make note of the position maintained by the Māori Party. It is understandable that its constituencies would have had anxieties over this legislation, fearing they would be disproportionately prosecuted under the legislation if it went through. In this case, however, it was the politicians who showed real leadership, and I commend them for it.

Helen Clark, when she decided to champion this legislation, showed enormous courage, because there were significant political risks. At the midnight hour John Key also demonstrated a similar level of courage, because his agreement to support the legislation also held huge political risks. Also, I have to mention others who have continued their support. I have to mention the work that was done by Lynne Pillay in the select committee; also the work done over many, many years by people like Beth Wood, our ex - New Zealand First member Deborah Morris-Travers, and a whole host of other people out there from a number of different organisations.

When the opposition to this legislation was at its zenith, I often used to quote Anatole France, who said that it does not matter whether 10,000 people believe that something that is wrong is right; it is still wrong. Therefore, we have to stick by what we believe is in the best interests of the youth and young people of our country. I believe that today is a watershed day in New Zealand’s social history. It is a day that Parliament will look back on, I believe, with a great deal of pride, and I guess we will wonder what the fuss was all about. But what we will in fact be able to say is that we will be leaving to the future of this country a somewhat better quality of child than the children who face the levels of violence they currently face. I therefore urge everybody to support the bill and congratulate, for a final time, Sue Bradford.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. In the sea of hyperbole and extreme emotion that has washed over the nation in these last few months, there have been two particular cases before the court that should have stopped us all in our tracks. The first was just last Friday, when the High Court in Auckland heard how a boy of 3 years of age was subjected to regular beatings using a baseball bat, a vacuum cleaner pipe, rods, and a wooden spoon, and was punched repeatedly in the face. The couple convicted of manslaughter used section 59 of the Crimes Act as their defence, claiming that they only ever used reasonable force.

They could use section 59 of the Crimes Act as a defence simply because it is there. It is a defence to allow parents to administer physical punishment against their children. No such defence exists for people doing the same to other people’s children, to other adults, or to pets. As long as we have people who are prepared to administer beatings so savage that a child’s blood splatters on to the ceiling, and who are then able to defend that callous brutality as a “reasonable” punishment, then this nation is in deep trouble.

The other case was heard in the Napier District Court 2 weeks ago, when a Hastings woman came to the attention of the police after her 7-year-old foster son was beaten so severely that he was left with welts on his arms and back still visible 6 days later. In reflecting upon her actions, the woman—a grandmother—talked about the need to take responsibility, saying: “There’s no reason justifying hurting your child, because it’s lifelong.” She resolved that she was determined to break the cycle of violence and learn new ways.

This is why this bill has been so significant in the evolution of Aotearoa. We all know of the outrageous abuse at the extreme end of the scale of violence that every day is being meted out to innocent children, and it must stop now. We also know of the willingness and the commitment of parents and grandparents, of aunts and uncles, and of caregivers who are clear that there is a different way to address the disciplining of children.

Child abuse and violence—and at its most grotesque extreme, child murder—have a profound cost on the well-being of this nation. At the level of fiscal impact, economist Murray Weatherston has estimated that child abuse costs our nation $1.25 billion a year. But there are other costs that emerge from the current provisions in our legislation, which have allowed physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment to be suffered by a child in the care of his or her parents or guardians. These include costs in international reputation in terms of our current status by breaching the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Then there are the lifelong costs of the trauma of the vulnerable. Children have a right to grow up free from violence; to grow up unscathed by the abuse of power; undamaged by the imprint of parental ill-treatment. There are the costs of cruelty that influences future generations whereby the ill-treatment of one child is repeated in the children and the grandchildren to come.

The Māori Party fully endorses and absolutely believes in the capacity of parents to be wonderful parents. We have travelled the country and met parents wanting us to know that they are the best possible parents they can be. We have had parents sending in photos of their children and their parents, sharing their stories in a passionate desire to help. We have called, right throughout this bill, for the urgency of ensuring that effective parenting education programmes are provided. We know that the cases of maltreatment and violence that feature in the headlines are few in number, yet far too often they overshadow the real issues facing parents in their homes. They are the issues of not knowing what to do, of calling out for help, and of looking for strategies, for programmes, and for ideas to be great parents.

Our decision to support the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act was based on these factors. As long as a single child is damaged at the hands of parents, we will support any legislative proposal that seeks to make a difference. As long as parents are saying to us that they want to know how to be better parents, we will support proposals to make a difference. And this bill will make a difference. It has already. It has sparked debate about the most difficult, challenging, and important responsibilities of all—the precious opportunity to bring up children. The Māori Party wants today to pay tribute to those organisations that have lobbied members of Parliament for years—thank you. I want here to acknowledge with great respect the investment and courage demonstrated by all those organisations in the name of this bill.

The Māori Party stands to honour the vision of Sue Bradford, who has endured the onslaught of anger and fear that this change has incited in so many. Sue has stood strong in her belief that we must treasure our mokopuna as the taonga we know them to be. I thank her for her persistence, her foresight, and her leadership. There have been others in this House who deserve to be recognised: members who shared their personal experiences, who talked about the challenge of parenting. We acknowledge Katherine Rich, for having the strength of character to stand true to her beliefs—tēnā koe, Katherine—Chester Borrows, for his genuine attempt to try to put forward a compromise, and, of course, the leaders of both National and Labour, for being prepared to work together in the interests of our children. The reaction to the practice of compromise was interesting in itself—a spirit of cooperation described as “flabbergasting”, as a “giant leap”, and as “remarkable”. If anyone had asked for our reaction we would simply have said that it was about manaakitanga—mutual respect, treating others in ways that ensure that all are elevated and enhanced in the interests of the nation.

We think of the goals of a fair and just society, and I pay my greatest tribute to the people of this country. Academics and researchers sent us papers describing how in earlier times Māori children were not physically disciplined in order to develop and nurture their fearless and adventurous spirit. Finally, as we consider the fearless and adventurous spirit of children, I thank the many mums and dads on both sides of the debate who, whether they marched on Parliament, sent an email, wrote copious letters, or made extremely passionate phone calls, all showed that they cared about children.

It has not been an easy path by any means, and in the Māori Party we too have had our trials and challenges as we agitated over the significance of this bill to our nation. We were influenced greatly by our reluctance to intervene in the important role of parenting. Our whole approach to whānau development has always been that we look to support the self-determining capacity of whānau to care for themselves. But we reminded ourselves that the State has exercised power over the family, long before this bill saw daylight, through parental obligations, education, health, and other matters. We have, and continue to have, significant concerns about the role and the capability of the police to be able to act in ways that support a climate of non-violence. We were adamant that we did not want to do anything that would create fear or exacerbate bias, particularly when we recognise the disproportionate and ongoing injustices experienced by Māori. These are concerns that must be listened to and we will continue to look for every opportunity to ensure justice is attained. But ultimately we made up our minds in our united pursuit of our kaupapa and in our vision for a nation that allows children to explore their world without fear of violence or of being hurt. We believe that statements of aspiration are important in encouraging whānau to create and maintain violence-free homes.

So it is with the vision of the Māori Party, the vision of this Parliament, and the vision of this nation that we made our stand to speak up to protect children. I want to end with the words of a waiata that one nanny sent to me, asking me to think of this song as we voted to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. If I could sing, I would sing it:

I believe the children are our future

Teach them well and let them lead the way

Show them all the beauty they possess inside

Give them a sense of pride to make it easier

Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.

That is the very least that we owe the children of this country. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on my own behalf to speak to this third reading. I represent one of the only parties in this House that is exercising a true conscience vote on this bill. It is a decision that has today cost us dearly. Some of those supporting this amendment to the Crimes Act would suggest that this is all about sending a message, not about upping conviction rates. I accept that due to the fact that both old parties are whipping their caucuses this new section 59 will tonight become law.

The bill neither bans nor allows smacking as such. In fact, it does not even mention smacking. It is about the use of force. Throughout the Crimes Act any degree of force, and even the threat to use force, is an assault. The current section 59 states that parents are justified in using force by way of correction towards their children, as long as that force is reasonable in the circumstances. This has historically created two tests for juries. Firstly, they have had to determine whether the force is reasonable, which has been a fairly objective decision, usually determined by the evidence of physical harm. The second test a jury had to weigh up is whether the force is being used for the purpose of correction, and this has always been a much more subjective test, requiring a jury to determine what was in the mind of the parent at the time of the incident.

This new amendment to section 59 does not change the first test. In fact, that is exactly what Chester Borrows attempted to do. But it does change the second test and establishes that correction is no longer a lawful purpose. Reasonable force can be used to prevent harmful behaviour as long as parents are not intending to correct the child. Parents can use reasonable force to place a child in his or her room for time out to protect siblings from aggressive behaviour, but they must not do so with the intention of punishing the child for that behaviour. Parents will need to make sure they are thinking with legal precision.

Whatever side of the issue members are on, it does not take long to figure out that this legislation will be a legal nightmare. However, this legislation is an amendment to the Crimes Act, and breaches of this Act rightly demand a strong response from law enforcers. Law enforcement is surely as important as the law itself. One of the reasons we scrutinise our police so intensely on matters of corruption or unbecoming behaviour is that as law enforcers they are agents of civil society and we rely on them to keep lawlessness at bay. We are in trouble if they act in a biased or reckless way. Police conduct and protocols must reflect a high and consistent standard, and the court system acts as a check that the law is both applied and upheld to the highest standard. The Police Complaints Authority also holds them to account for the way they treat the public while in the line of duty.

Most members of this House—including myself—supported an amendment a fortnight ago to make explicit the discretion we want the New Zealand police to use when dealing with cases where parents are enforcing boundaries with their children. We want it to be clear that those charged with enforcing this amendment do so appropriately. However, no explicit discretion is articulated in the amendment bill for Child, Youth and Family despite the fact that it exercises profound statutory powers in regard to children, young people, and their families if it believes that children or young people are at risk of harm.

Shortly after I entered this House in 2002 I visited a non-governmental organisation provider to better acquaint myself with its work. The visit was, for me, a defining moment. At the end of my time there, its lead social worker asked whether he could get my help with a case the organisation had. It concerned a couple who had had their six children removed by Child, Youth and Family and had turned to this reputable organisation for help. It was quickly determined that the mother was suffering from moderate depression and that the housework had got away on her. The children had been removed on grounds of neglect; there was no suggestion of any kind of physical abuse.

A team was sent round to clean up the house, and wrap-round services were put in place to support the mother and work towards her recovery. This was successfully completed in a reasonably quick time. Then the agency went, as advocates, to Child, Youth and Family to request the return of the six children, offering assurances that ongoing support and monitoring were guaranteed for this family. Two years later, when I was visiting the centre, these children were still in care, separated from each other as siblings, and some of their foster parents were applying for permanent care of the children in their charge. I could not believe that this could actually happen in Aotearoa New Zealand.

It was even more disturbing that highly competent professionals could not persuade the local office of Child, Youth and Family to review the decision or supply an explanation for its unwillingness to do so. The staff at the agency I was visiting felt like they had hit a brick wall. That brick wall explains why I cannot support the third reading of this bill. It is not that I object to the statutory powers that Child, Youth and Family has. Nor do I mind it acting with speed if its staff believe that children are at risk. But when a competent agency cannot get a situation reconsidered, then how do distraught parents make a calm and rational appeal to a department that keeps no record, does not collate any complaints, does not have a robust complaints procedure in place at present, and certainly does not have anything with any independence? There is no advocacy service available to families who want to appeal a decision being made on their behalf.

The staff at Child, Youth and Family are the people, whether we like to admit it or not, who will be largely investigating claims of breaches of this provision and enforcing and intervening in those situations. I cannot, with my hand on heart, tell New Zealand parents that they are currently safe with the amendment to this legislation and therefore I cannot support this third reading.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The ACT party rises in the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill as the only party opposing it, and I think it is important that we state the reasons why. But, first of all, let me take my hat off to Sue Bradford, whose name appears on this bill. All the way through, Sue Bradford has held a consistent and principled line on this policy and legislation. The Māori Party, too—and it has been a tough issue for the Māori Party to take leadership on—has had a consistent and principled line, as also has, I think, Katherine Rich. It is fair to say that other parties and MPs in this House have had shifting positions on this bill and on the policy, and that has added to some of the confusion.

Let me explain why ACT opposes this bill. Sue Bradford and the Māori Party have a policy of zero tolerance for any violence against children. Included in that definition of violence is a smack. In their view we, as a Parliament, should make it a crime to smack a child, so that if a parent smacks a toddler, that is a crime. The bill removes any defence.

To make it plain what the purpose of the legislation is, I can do no better than to read clause 3, which states that the purpose is to “make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence …”. I think that is a very worthy purpose. But the clause goes on to say: “… by abolishing the use of parental force for the purpose of correction.” That is where the difference between ACT members and, I guess, now the vast majority of MPs lies. I do not think it is Parliament’s role to say to mums and dads that if they lightly tap their toddlers on the bottom, they are committing a criminal offence, and that they should not do it. This bill says not only that parents should not do that but that they are committing a crime against the Crimes Act in so doing.

In case members have any doubt about what we are doing here today, let me read clause 4 of the bill that we are shifting into law. Clause 4 puts a new section 59 into the Crimes Act. Section 59(2) will now state: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.” I want to read that again. It states: “Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.”

When my son was a toddler I smacked him on the bottom; this legislation makes that a crime. The legislation is quite clear that it is against the law to do that. It may be that the police would not bother prosecuting me for doing that, but that gives me no comfort, because I want to live within the law as best as I can. Certainly, as a parent I want to live within the law with my son. I object to the fact that this bill will make me and a large number—dare I say it, the vast majority—of parents, who are good parents, criminals under the Crimes Act because they tapped or used force for the purpose of correction. I do not think that is a good policy for this Parliament to adopt; I do not think it is right.

I want to make a further point. Sue Bradford has not done this, the Māori Party has not done this, but Labour and National have. Those parties have said that good parents who lightly smack their children have nothing to fear, because the police will not prosecute them. Well, that has to be bad law. We are passing a law that says people should not do something and that it is against the law, but we are telling those people not to worry, because the police will not prosecute them if they break the law.

What sort of law are we passing here tonight? It is a law that people can disobey—as detailed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party—because the police will not prosecute them. Well, the ACT party believes in law that means something. The ACT party believes in a police force whose job it is to uphold the law, not to ignore it. The Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party have said: “Don’t worry about this law. The police will ignore it, and if they don’t, we’ll change it.” That is why I say that I admire Sue Bradford and the members of the Māori Party. They have stuck to the principle of what the law is about. We have heard from Helen Clark and John Key that we should not worry about the law, because it will not be upheld. Well, I do not agree with that. I think we should pass law that is clear and that we expect to be enforced.

My next point concerns the great aroha—love—that has broken out in our Parliament in respect of the smacking issue. Well, I think it is quite nice, and I rather love it that MPs can work together sometimes. But just because all parliamentarians agree on something does not make it right, does not make it good law, and does not make it good for New Zealand.

I have to say that when I read the new clause 4 I do not understand what the National Party has been against all this time. I was persuaded by National’s arguments against the bill. The only thing that this new clause does is to say that the police have discretion. Well, we knew that. The police always have had discretion. No one knows that better than the Prime Minister of New Zealand, because she has been the beneficiary of that discretion on more than one occasion, has she not? So we knew that the police had discretion. I do not understand how a party can be opposed to this legislation, then say the police have discretion, and suddenly it becomes OK, without explanation.

Finally, I have this concern: I think the issue of the smacking of children—not abuse, not violence, but smacking—should be one of conscience for individual MPs. If we were serious about testing this Parliament and its resolve, the old parties, like the new MMP parties, would allow their MPs to have a free vote, so we could actually see where Parliament lies and actually test the vote. In respect of this issue I do not agree that Helen Clark and John Key can dictate and decide how the majority of MPs in this Parliament will vote. I do not think we can take any comfort from that. John Key said in this House that if Labour had had a free vote, the bill would not have passed, so presumably, at that point, he was saying there were Labour MPs who would vote against it—I presume that was the case. I would like to see that tested by John Key and Helen Clark by their giving their MPs some mana and letting them have a free vote. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KATHERINE RICH (National): It is a great pleasure to stand in the House today and speak for the first time on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, in its third reading. I think it is a marvellous time for Parliament. We have brought together differing views at times, but we now have majority support, by far, for this bill, and we will see it passed tonight.

If hitting children is the answer, I think many of us have asked the wrong question. One of the things that struck me as being really surprising throughout the whole debate about the bill was that in many cases the debate went off-track. This bill was really about removing the defence of section 59, which was used when some parents who had beaten their kids within an inch of their lives came before the courts and used it as some kind of excuse. In many cases those parents got off convictions. There were only a small number of those cases a year—some estimates were six, some were 10, and some were 15—but a number of cases in particular really made many New Zealanders wonder about the rights of parents and the sort of country we live in.

One case I recall, when I was spokesperson on welfare many years ago, was that of a 41-year-old stepfather who beat his boy with a block of wood. This man, having been to the courts and listed the atrocious things that the little boy had done, was able to get off a conviction because the jurors looked at him and said: “What would we have done if we were in the place of that parent?”. Well, that is not an excuse.

One of the things that is marvellous about tonight is that we are lowering the bar considerably. We are saying goodbye to horsewhips, jug cords, hosepipes, vacuum cleaners, pieces of wood, and all sorts of other implements that have been regularly used on children in the name of discipline. I do not think that the reasons given for the use of those implements stack up.

One of the things we need to think about is how our country is judged. At the moment, our child abuse record is appalling, so we need to work towards cultural change and changing the minds of some parents who regularly inflict those kinds of beatings and think, in so doing, that they are instilling discipline in their children when they are not.

There has been considerable debate about this bill over many decades, so what we are doing tonight is the culmination of the work of a lot of people, some of whom are sitting up in the gallery tonight—people who have spent their lives as advocates for children and in raising these debates. I thank all of those groups who have taken part in the debate over many, many years.

What we are doing today is something that Sweden did in 1967—it removed the defence for smacking in that year. There was no tidal wave of cases brought to the courts. There was no increase in abuse. Perhaps we can debate what Sweden went on to do in the 1980s and 1990s, but that is different. Sweden did in 1967 what we are doing tonight, and Sweden benefited from it. There was no crush in the courts of parents being made criminals. It just did not happen.

Some have said that what we are doing tonight will not reduce child abuse. We are not pretending for a second that what we are doing tonight will eradicate the way some parents treat their kids. But I will tell members one thing: for those parents who do thrash their kids within an inch of their lives, this law will make it a hell of a lot clearer that when they come before the courts there will be much stronger convictions, and strong messages sent to them that what they have done is wrong. I am very thankful for that.

One of the things that has surprised me about this debate has been the absolute hysteria whipped up by some people who have wanted to create an impression that this bill will do a whole bunch of things that it will not do. In particular, false experts have been brought out from Sweden. Ruby Harrold-Claesson is a fruit loop, to say the least. She had no academic standing in her community, and I know that, because I contacted a number of Swedish professors, people who were social workers, and people who had worked within the child advocacy area. Those people had not heard of her, and if they had, they did not have very complimentary things to say.

Making the Timaru horsewhip lady the champion of parental rights was, I felt, one of the most outrageous things that I had ever seen. Here was a woman who had a case file with Child, Youth and Family that was very thick, and a track record with some of our social service agencies that dated back more than 15 years. Yet here she was presenting herself as being a good parent and an advocate for not changing the law. Well, that was one of the things that I found very difficult to deal with.

There are a lot of people to thank. One of the things I would like to do is pay tribute to Chester Borrows for the work he has done. He is someone who has been a cop and who has been a lawyer, and he has seen a lot of New Zealand life that many of us would not like to see. He was someone who I think became a champion for change and a champion for children.

I also pay tribute to the Māori Party members. What they did was not easy, but they took a leadership role, decided what was best for their people, and they stood strong. I thank the likes of Brian Donnelly, who had a previous bill; some previous members of this House, like Deborah Coddington; and those like Kay Crowther, a staunch advocate. I think the sum total of her Plunket presidency will be a great one, when she stands down after its conference, having seen such major change.

I also pay tribute to Sue Bradford. Yes, there have been some testing times for all of us in this House as we have debated this issue, but I can say that I am sure none of that burden is a little toe’s worth of the burden that Sue has faced in being an advocate.

I also pay tribute to my leader, John Key. One of the things that I think John has shown is that he is willing to put the classic tactics of Opposition aside in order to do something that is better for our nation’s people and for our nation’s children. He was not afraid to make a decision that put aside classic Opposition politics in order to come to an agreement and do something for the benefit of our country. That is something that I think has created this unprecedented situation today, where we have so many members in the House voting for this particular bill.

I feel very confident about this bill. I am glad there will be a review in 2 years’ time, because I think that in 2 years’ time a lot of people will go: “Phewf—what were we worried about?”. One of the things that has been said in previous debates is that this bill could potentially make good parents into criminals. Well, that was never going to be the case, in my view. I ask those parents who think there is such a thing as a loving smack—which seems to me to be the worst kind of oxymoron possible—that if the right to smack is such a God-given right, why do people do it in private? Why do they feel bad about it when they do it in public? One of the surveys I saw, which I thought was really interesting, found that some parents said that if this bill were passed, they would think twice before they smacked their child in a supermarket. Well, I think that that is a good thing, and I think that that is progress for us all.

This has been a bill that has made us talk with our families, talk with those people whom we respect, and debate the issues. I think that that is a great thing. This issue is one that has touched many Kiwis’ lives. It has occupied more talkback hours and more newspaper column centimetres than any issue I can recall within my political lifetime. It is an issue that forces people to think about the kind of community we want to have.

I think that in passing this bill we are doing something for children. With all those surveys we saw—surveys showing that 83 percent of New Zealanders did not want this bill—I kept wanting to ask the question: “Well, how many kids did you survey about the bill?”. I do not think that many were included in that. The survey question I would have liked to have seen was: “Do you think parents should get off a conviction by citing section 59 when they have pummelled their children, beaten their children, and thrashed their children?”. I think that most Kiwis—by far the majority—would have stood up and said: “No, I don’t want that.”

What we are doing with this bill tonight is lowering the bar and sending a strong message. I do not think we will see come before the courts the cases—which have resulted in acquittals—that we have seen in the past. Hopefully, as a result of this bill, we will not see again the sorts of cases where parents have used horsewhips, jug cords, and blocks of wood on their children, and done all sorts of things that would make good parents shake their heads with concern.

So I say thank you to all members. I do not think that those supporting the bill will regret it. I think that this is a great day for Parliament that so many members have chosen to do the right thing and support this legislation.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to stand in this House and speak on the third reading of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill, and, in doing so, to thank and congratulate Sue Bradford as we end our journey of seeing the bill go through this House. I acknowledge the Green Party, the Māori Party, Jim Anderton from Progressive, and, of course, our Labour caucus led by Helen Clark, who all stood together right at the beginning within their caucuses. I acknowledge that for Labour, Broad Church though we were, we all did so because we saw that this bill was about making and keeping our children safe. That was always what it was about: making our children safe.

I also want to acknowledge the courage of members who did not have their colleagues standing beside them: Peter Dunne, Brian Donnelly, Doug Woolerton, and Katherine Rich. I also acknowledge the Law Commission and the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who worked so hard with us in drafting the first amendment, and the Justice and Electoral Committee report, which was designed to reassure parents and the public. That report was supported by the majority of the select committee, and it stated that the police had the discretion not to prosecute and that they would prosecute only when it was in the public interest. Despite that statement in the select committee report, many, many parents remained very anxious and needed more reassurance. I commend Helen Clark, who was able to work with Sue Bradford and the Law Commission to present an amendment that was acceptable to the vast majority of the very strong opponents to the bill. That was done to ensure that the bill will now pass—which we are confident about—by a sizable majority in this House. It now sends a message that is very, very loud and clear.

But I want to ask the House a question. In the debate that was raging out there, if the question put to people had not been whether they thought parents should be criminalised for smacking their children, but had been whether they thought parents should be criminalised for hitting their children with pipes, whips, and pieces of wood—which is what this legislation is about—what would the poll have told us then? I wish that there had been far more clarity and integrity about running this debate. I am very saddened by the uncertainty, the fear, the panic, and, certainly, the heartache that many parents felt about this bill. It was a very, very difficult time. But I am elated that most at-risk children will now be safer and that we can work towards achieving the purpose of the bill set out in clause 3, which is “to make better provision for children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence”.

Sanity around this debate would never ever have happened if it had not been for the staunch advocacy work undertaken by many of this country’s great and credible organisations that care for our children. I will name just a few: Barnardos, EPOCH, Women’s Refuge, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef, Every Child Counts, our Families Commission, and the Children’s Commissioner. Many individuals also spoke out and campaigned very strongly—far too many to name here. I acknowledge the many churches that held a peace vigil for our children in such a dignified way. I acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of emails, which gave us heart and clogged up our BlackBerrys. I am proud of the Waitakere City Council, which, in line with its children first policy, was the first council to speak up and state strongly that section 59 should change.

Not one member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I chair, was unmoved by the stories we heard during the submission process. We heard about the damage that a harsh upbringing and violence had had on people’s lives, and that they had carried the damage through not only their childhood but also their adult lives—and it still hurt. It was really significant to hear those people, who came and told us their stories. That took a tremendous amount of courage.

Critics of the bill argued that section 59 of the principal Act has been used successfully only seven times over a long period of time. But that is the whole point of why the law had to change. Seven times represents seven children, and the issue was not just about those seven children. It was the message that section 59 of the Act gave to the police when they were looking at prosecuting someone and were considering whether the prosecution would be successful, if the benchmark was as high as that. I am not someone who is of the view that it is a parent’s God-given responsibility to hit a child, but many submitters who came to the select committee said just that.

Many submitters came and talked about their upbringing, and also talked about bringing up their children and how that differed from their own upbringing. They acknowledged the good job that their parents had done in bringing them up, but they also talked about the information and strategies available to them when they raised their children. They particularly spoke about The Nanny programme on television and the influence that it had had—the naughty chair, the naughty-mat, and taking time out. They also spoke about the SKIP programme—or, to give it its full name, SKIP: Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—and about how it was really significant to learn that there are other ways of disciplining children than smacking them. In fact, I found it was our younger parents who often said they could not contemplate hitting their children now, because it just did not seem right. That is not to denigrate the parents of my generation, who were good parents, but it is to say that as we roll out education, information, and research, and as we talk about new and different ideas, then our society does become a better place to live and a better place to raise our children in.

I will finish by talking about an incident that occurred when I was in a fruit shop in New Lynn. There was a young child there, throwing a doozy of a tantrum. The mother was standing and waiting, with other people standing around and tsk-ing just a little, but not saying anything. She was just waiting calmly for that child to stop throwing the tantrum. I probably would not have done this before, but, because I had been on the select committee, I felt compelled to go to her and say: “Excuse me.” As I said that, she reeled around and looked as though she thought she would probably be told off. I said: “I just want to say what a great job you are doing of handling this difficult situation.” She responded by saying: “Thank you. I feel like I am an alien.”, and I said: “You are not. This is what kids do, and you are handling it really well.” I noted that when she went to the queue, people moved to let her go through, and I think that is what we need to do. We say that it takes a village to raise a child. We need to stand alongside parents when they are in such situations and say that it is a normal thing for kids to throw tantrums, that our kids did that, that we are not judging them, and that we want to support them in dealing with it. It is not much to do.

I am proud that this bill has got to this stage. As I said before, I am sorry about the heartache associated with getting it here, but I know that we now have very good support from the majority of the members in this House, and I am really proud of that. I think that this is a day to be remembered. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to speak on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill again. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that worked on this bill, I have been deeply involved since day one. I reviewed the 1,700 submissions and listened to over 300 oral submissions. I have talked to dozens of people. I have been absolutely snowed under by hundreds—no, possibly thousands—of emails. As Katherine Rich has noted, section 59 has had New Zealanders discussing, debating, and often disagreeing shrilly, for months. That is the one good thing about this bill: it has focused New Zealand on its appalling record of child abuse.

Despite the bitterness of the debate at times, it has also united New Zealanders in the positive things that they do believe about child rearing. In the submissions, we saw that submitters actually agreed on many, many things. The first thing that all submitters commented on was the frightening tendency for family violence in New Zealand and their disgust for child abuse. All submitters who took the time to present their message—regardless of their opinion on the bill—did so because they were concerned about the welfare of children. The vast majority commented on the importance of parenting and said that it was probably the most difficult job that any of us have ever done in our lives. The majority of submitters understood that there were many creative and interesting techniques used to bring up kids, and that parents were always keen to learn new ways to parent—we just need to look at the number of “super-nanny” programmes on the telly to vouch for that.

The only thing submitters had trouble agreeing on was the role of the smack. Either smacking was OK or smacking was not OK, but even those who thought that smacking was not OK mostly did not want to criminalise or convict good parents for giving a light smack. So that tells me that most New Zealanders—although they are diverse in their values over how to bring up children—are thoughtful, conscientious, and concerned about their kids. It also tells me that most parents are more than capable of making good decisions about rearing their children without the Government being involved. Managing, training, disciplining, and bringing up our kids is an intensely personal experience, and decisions about these matters should be family business.

That is why Parliament has had so many problems when trying to write this legislation. To me, it is such a shame that so much parliamentary time, energy, and resources have been wasted on this bill, when we could have addressed the real causes of child abuse and focused on stopping the kind of treatment meted out to those Lillybings, James Whakarurus, and Coral Burrows.

However, the biggest concern I had with this bill has always been the interference into the lives of good parents and the dangers of criminalising families who occasionally use a smack. Now that John Key has been able to facilitate the introduction of the amendment that will accept that ordinary, good parents may occasionally smack their kids without being charged as criminals, the bill actually manages to bridge the main area of disagreement between submitters. National and John Key were very aware that unless we did something, the bill had the numbers to pass in its original form. We were deeply troubled that politicians were abdicating their responsibility to provide clear messages to the New Zealand Police, who are charged with enforcing the law.

The amendment does that. It is not perfect but it is the best we could do. Now, finally, after all the argument, the bill can do what most New Zealanders desire. The bill will send a strong message that the present level of violence against children in our society is unacceptable. It will also prevent good parents from being prosecuted for carrying out their normal parenting duties.

I congratulate John Key on finding a circuit-breaker. Good parents will appreciate this solution. As everyone has heard in the House tonight, the bill will not stop child abuse. Hopefully, all the focus on the issue will be positive for our children. We have certainly heard how much New Zealanders abhor the high levels of child abuse we have in this country. The bill is much better because of John Key’s and National’s faith in New Zealand parents and because of our advocacy for them. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call will be a split call for the Labour Party—5 minutes each. There will be a bell at 4 minutes.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I commend the people who have spoken in this debate on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. When I first came to this House and gave my maiden speech back in 1994, a significant part of that maiden speech was to observe the obvious and to express my concerns about how in many cases we treat the most vulnerable people in our society—our children. Thirteen years later I stand in this Chamber and acknowledge the work of Sue Bradford in bringing an amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act that I believe will give greater protection to those vulnerable children in our society. I also commend the select committee process and the job that the Justice and Electoral Committee did under the leadership of Lynne Pillay. I commend them for the hours and hours of time they spent on trying to bring back into workable form a bill that basically was going to give protection to the youngest and most vulnerable in our society but was certainly in no way—as has been claimed by some of the opponents of this bill—going to criminalise good, law-abiding parents who are doing their best.

Like many people in this House I have the privilege of being a parent—of four children from 18 to 7—and I can say very clearly that there is nothing in this bill that should make me and my wife, Gillian, in any way afraid of the law intervening in our household. People talk about their own history as children, and upon reflection of my own history of upbringing I reflect in terms of my own parents—my late father and living mother; I hope they do not mind my mentioning them. There is nothing in this bill that would have endangered them as loving and excellent parents.

I particularly commend the contribution made by Katherine Rich. I will not repeat the very excellent points she made, but I commend her courage and focus, and the real issues she summarised. The repeal of section 59 is not about criminalising and going after good, law-abiding, loving parents; it is about raising the bar of those parents who historically have been inclined to basically beat their kids to within an inch of their lives. Katherine Rich said—and it was a wonderful saying—“goodbye to horse whips, jug cords, hose pipes, vacuum cleaners, pieces of wood, and all sorts of other implements that have been regularly used on children in the name of discipline.” As of tonight, the legal bar will be raised in those areas.

I also commend the contribution of former ACT MP Deborah Coddington. I do not often agree with her contributions, I have to say, but I acknowledge the sincerity with which she has addressed this issue. I also acknowledge the personal pain for her that that involved, and her long-time history of campaigning against child abuse in this country. I acknowledge Brian Donnelly for some of his excellent early work and for articles he has written about this bill being anti-hitting. This bill is against the hitting and beating of children. I acknowledge my good colleague from the Waikato, Doug Woolerton, for his contribution to the debate.

In the time I have left in the short call I have been allocated, I particularly wish to acknowledge the work and guidance I have received from wonderful campaigners for child welfare in my own city of Hamilton. I acknowledge particularly former Parentline Director Maxine Hodgson, and the Director of the Institute for Child Protection Studies, Anthea Simcock; also the wonderful work done by the Hamilton Abuse Intervention Project; they have politicised the issue of child abuse in Hamilton and are supportive of this bill tonight. I acknowledge the former mayor Margaret Evans for her very positive leadership, along with many others in my community. I went to them for guidance. They gave a very clear message, along with other groups working in the area of child welfare.

I commend this bill tonight. The bill will not criminalise ordinary, law-abiding parents, but it raises the bar against those who have previously used horse whips and blocks of wood, etc., to correct and hit their children. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill has been a difficult bill—indeed, a painful bill—for Parliament and for the whole of New Zealand to debate. No one likes talking about beating our children or about the violence and abuse that children endure every day in this country. So it is no wonder that the whole issue of parental violence against children has been something of a taboo—a subject so sensitive and painful that we would prefer not to talk about it.

In debating this bill up and down New Zealand, on talkback radio and so forth, we have lifted a taboo and brought the whole issue into the open, and we have confronted our shadow, if you will—a dark side of New Zealand society. I believe that it has been an incredibly healthy, although difficult and painful, process for our society. Dozens of people have talked to me—and, I am sure, to many MPs—about the violence, abuse, and thrashings they endured as a child. They are people who had never been able to discuss the trauma and terror they experienced as children who were regularly abused by their parents, but they have finally been able to share their secrets and talk about their experiences. I think that has been incredibly healing and healthy.

The most important aspect of the bill is that we are standing as an almost united Parliament in protecting our children from abuse. Before the previous election, all political parties in this House pledged to the lobby group Every Child Counts that we would put children and their needs at the centre of legislation. In passing this bill today we are honouring that pledge and sending a message that we do not condone or tolerate violence against our children and that it is not acceptable or excusable to hit, brutalise, or abuse them. We are sending a message that as a culture we need to move beyond physical punishment and abuse as a way of disciplining our children—just as we did a few decades ago when we made corporal punishment illegal in schools. We recognise that it will not be easy for many parents to make this change and that they will need help in doing so. We are pleased that the Government has committed to providing that help.

I note that Gordon Copeland said in a release today that this bill was a “gross perversion of the democratic process”. I disagree. I believe that the bill is actually a triumph of the democratic process. Parliament has recognised and demonstrated that it can work together and reach a consensus on contentious legislation. I think it is sad indeed that Gordon Copeland felt so passionately about the right of parents to hit their children that he resigned from his party. That is a sad consequence of legislation that I am certain will come to be viewed as historic social legislation—right up there along with the Homosexual Law Reform Act and the end of capital punishment.

Finally, I salute Sue Bradford for her courage in bringing this bill to the House. She hoped the bill would be, as she said, “like motherhood and apple pie”; instead, it has been like riding a wild, wild tiger. She has never flinched and never shirked from the task in the face of intolerable abuse and violence. I suspect that others may have given up along the way, but never Sue Bradford. I give thanks to all the non-governmental organisations, to the MPs in this House who have put principle ahead of politics—Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, Chester Borrows, and members of the Labour Party and the Māori Party—and to Helen Clark and John Key for their leadership.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): As many members have said during this debate, being a parent is hard. At times it can be a hell of a struggle, but it is worth every second of it. Becoming a father has given me a new respect for single parents, who do not have the option of saying: “Enough!” and handing over a child when their patience is stretched too thin. And it has given me a new contempt for those who attack single parents as an easy way to score political points. Because parents’ patience does get stretched thin, sometimes it snaps. I cannot promise that I will never whack my child, but I will never be proud of doing that.

Some people opposed this Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill because they claimed that it would criminalise parents for lightly smacking their children. It never would have, and it was never intended that it should have. The bill is aimed at stopping serious child abuse perpetrated under the guise of discipline, and it directly challenges the view that whacking children is somehow a duty, a right, and a thing to be proud of.

Judy Turner raised concerns about Child, Youth and Family’s interventions. The Green Party is also concerned about a number of specific actions made by Child, Youth and Family, but we also acknowledge the enormously difficult and thankless work its staff does. We do not agree that this bill will affect that agency’s policy or its level of intervention. Child, Youth and Family already investigates allegations of child abuse independently of criminal proceedings, and that will continue.

Some have said that they agree with the bill but that it is premature—that we need a public education campaign first to give parents the tools they need to maintain discipline without violence. In fact, we already have a TV campaign. It is fully self-funding and enormously popular, and it is called Supernanny. People watch Jo Jo because they are hungry for information—because she gives practical tools for dealing with even the most unruly children, and because those tools work. For those who think that discipline is synonymous with a whack, I tell them to get this: she never smacks! In fact, she chastises parents who yell, smack, or otherwise lose control over themselves, and therefore over their children.

Smacking is not—at least, not very often—the calm, measured response to an infraction of rules that some would have us believe; in my view, it would probably be worse if it were. It is almost always a lack of control. I do not judge parents for that, but neither do I congratulate them.

This bill is an important statement for this country. It says that we no longer condone, through an Act of this Parliament, the use of violence against children. It removes the notion that somehow discipline justifies beating our young. Given our shameful child abuse statistics in this country, it seems remarkable to me that this legislation is even contentious.

I sincerely thank Sue Bradford for making New Zealand face this debate squarely. I thank all the members of this House and people outside this House who have put themselves on the line for this issue, and I thank all members of this Parliament for their contributions to it. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 4 (Brown, Donnelly, Stewart, Woolerton); Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1.

Noes 8

New Zealand First 3 (Mark, Paraone, Peters); United Future 1 (Turner); ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Bill read a third time.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that it is important to check that no one is carrying a proxy for Mr Copeland. It seems odd for someone to resign from his party over an issue and then not to vote. I am sure a proxy is being held.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank Mr Hide for raising that. Those who are in the House are in the House, and the proxy has not been exercised.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): Just for clarification, I tell the House that Labour holds a proxy, but not for this vote.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Barnett.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Points of Order

Votes—Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member can seek leave. Is there any objection?

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I have not had a chance to talk to Mr Copeland or to other party whips. I am not sure whether there has been an arrangement on this matter, and I am not quite sure what the effect of this is. It would be useful, perhaps, if we could start Mrs Chadwick’s bill and maybe have a discussion with Mr Copeland and the whips to work out—

Peter Brown: Be reasonable, Darren!

DARREN HUGHES: I am very reasonable. I am very happy to accommodate this, but I am just trying to work out what the state of play is. I was not in the House before dinner, and I am not quite sure what—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member does have the right to seek leave. I ask the member whether he wants to speak to that?

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): The important thing from my point of view is to try to get my vote registered. If the course outlined by Darren Hughes would help me to achieve that goal, then I would be happy to defer the matter and seek leave in a few minutes’ time, after I have had the chance to talk to Darren and other whips.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member can seek leave at any time.

Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 May.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, which I was debating 2 weeks ago, was actually built as a result of surveys from the Retailers Association that were carried out in 2002 and 2005. The survey in 2002 showed that only 26 percent of Rotorua wanted Easter Sunday trading, but the July 2005 survey showed a 76 percent response in Rotorua in favour of Easter Sunday trading.

The Rotorua Chamber of Commerce established a focus group after 52 retailers were prosecuted in 2005 when they joined forces and supported an event called Jambalaya. This focus group comprised the chamber of commerce, the Rotorua District Council, Ready to Retail, and myself. We undertook a survey of 125 respondents, 70 percent of which wanted to have the choice whether to open on Easter Sunday. The Daily Post, our local newspaper, joined the chamber of commerce in coordinating a petition to Parliament endorsing the amendment to current legislation, and 3,136 signatures were received and presented in June 2006.

At the Local Government New Zealand conference in July 2005—so it is some surprise that the Auckland City Council does not know about this bill—a remit was passed unanimously in support of an amendment to the Shop Trading Hours Act to empower local authorities to use a special consultative process to determine local authority and population authority for Easter Sunday trading. This focus group formulated the focus of this bill, which is a Rotorua District Council bill that I am sponsoring and we are debating today.

The bill was developed after the Shop Trading Hours Working Group was established by the Hon Margaret Wilson in 2003 in an attempt to find a way forward for the whole of the country. The group then comprised representation from the Retailers Association, Local Government New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and Tourism New Zealand. The attempts of the Northern Distribution Union to destabilise this initiative were remarkably absent in 2003, which shows that the union movement is now much stronger and better organised. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was part of the working group, and it had a pragmatic approach at that stage. It recommended two options: removing Easter trading as a restricted day, or empowering local authorities to exempt areas omitted from the 1990 Act, such as Rotorua. This bill reflects the second option. It will not add to the 3½ days, as many members have suggested. It allows areas that were denied the choice to trade to do so only after communities have been consulted under the special consultative procedure in Part 6 of the Local Government Act, and it gives the areas that were left out in 1990 the chance to join the 15 areas that were granted an exemption.

The worker protections were significantly strengthened after the Commerce Committee’s scrutiny, and I thank the committee members for that. Reasonable notice of work on Easter Sunday must be given, no worker can be coerced into working, and every worker will have the freedom to choose whether they want to work. Any worker who chooses not to work cannot be discriminated against, and will be supported by the Employment Relations Act. I think that is a good thing.

I remind Green Party members that initial worker protections were requested by Green MP the late Rod Donald when we brought in the garden centres exemption in 2001. The Rotorua focus group has no problem with these worker-strengthened provisions. In fact, I go further to say we would not be concerned if there were to be a change in the status of Easter Sunday.

In conclusion, I urge members to give their considered support for this bill. This bill is Rotorua’s second attempt to create a level playing field with those traders who are already open on Easter Sunday. It is not a case of further liberalisation. The bill has strong support for the devolution of decision making to councils to allow Easter Sunday trading as directed by Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce. The cost of consultation will not be increased, as the question of trading will be included in the annual planning process, along with other issues such as rates, services, and levels of investment. The cost to business will not be increased. Costs needed to cover employee working rates will be passed on to the consumer. Rotorua also respects those opposed to trading on Sunday.

I conclude by stating that with the passing of this bill the initial bizarre irregularities created by poor law in 1990 will once and for all be fixed to a level playing field on Easter Sunday. It will not add to the creep of liberalisation, for that is not the purpose of this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I have now had a chance to consult with the whips, and I again seek the leave of the House to record my vote on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That will be so recorded.

GORDON COPELAND: My vote is against.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)
Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): This Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill before the House tonight is about fairness and about having laws that reflect the realities of contemporary life. Before Parliament passed the 1990 Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act, the Department of Labour operated its own Shop Trading Hours Commission, which would hear and grant dispensations. This body was extinguished and there is now no avenue under current legislation for retailers to apply for exemptions. So those who received exemptions prior to 1990 have done very well, but, of course, this has created much friction for those who now wish to trade on Easter Sunday. Visitor destinations like Queenstown and Taupō can trade on Easter Sunday, but Rotorua, Mount Maunganui, and Wanganui cannot. I recall a couple of years ago a cruise liner coming into Mount Maunganui. The shops in Mount Maunganui were not open, and the shops in Tauranga were not open, so buses were put on to take visitors from the ships down to Taupō. The bus even had to pass Rotorua to get there.

In my opening statement I said that this bill is about fairness. These examples demonstrate how stupid the current law is. There has been a long history of trading restrictions in New Zealand. The 1990 Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act provided some compromise, and now we have the opportunity to extend those provisions. Currently there are two groups of shops permitted to open on restricted days. These are special types of shops and are in particular areas. Stores such as dairies and service stations selling food, drink, household items, personal items, and automotive fuel, lubricants, parts, and accessories are able to open. Shops selling mainly souvenirs, duty-free goods, and ready-to-eat food, bookstalls at public passenger transport terminals, pharmacies, and shops of genuine exhibitions and shows—and, following an amendment to the Act in 2001, garden centres—may open on Easter Sunday.

A second group of shops in some areas may open because the Act froze some area exemption orders that had been granted under the Shop Trading Act of 1977. Those exemptions were decided by a commission based on the application and a hearing process. The commission had to be satisfied that the exemption was in the best interests of the public generally, based on the following factors: public demand, effect on retail prices, effect on family and social patterns in the area, the nature of the area, the desirability of providing service to the public at all reasonable times in tourist and holiday resort areas, stability and economic planning in a wider area, the interests of other shop occupiers, minimising trading on Sundays, and the 40-hour week principle. If a shop does not clearly fit into one of the exempting categories it is an offence to open and trade during restricted times, and the occupier may be liable to a fine up to $1,000.

The retailers appear to consider fines as a cost of doing business, and minimal compared with the costs associated with having to close. The maximum fine level is also minimal in comparison with the resource expenditure of the Department of Labour to visit, investigate, and prosecute such breaches. Recent decisions by the court also reduce the effectiveness of the penalty regime. To date, the department has prosecuted 70 shops—[Interruption] Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. Members cannot stand and speak. If they want conversation they should go out into the corridors. I apologise, Mr Tisch.

LINDSAY TISCH: Recent decisions of the court also reduce the effectiveness of the penalties regime. To date, the department has prosecuted 70 shop owners for opening over the 2006 Easter period. Those prosecutions resulted in 14 shop owners being convicted and discharged without fines, 54 shop owners being convicted and fined, and two shop owners being convicted and warned. It is interesting to note that there are a number of exemptions already for Easter Sunday: Parnell Road in Auckland; the Arts Centre of Christchurch; the Carnegie Centre in Dunedin, The Marketplace and Collins Road in Hamilton, and the Napier market. Nelson can trade on Christmas Day, which is interesting, and also Good Friday when Founders Park is open.

We debated my colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill the other day that said we could not have Good Friday trading, yet there are places where there are exemptions to trade on Good Friday and on Christmas Day. Paihia shops can trade on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday. Picton, in the Mariners Mall, also has Friday and Sunday trading if a cruise ship is in the port, and Queenstown has Easter Friday. Richmond Court in Thames, where full-time artists and craftspeople sell their own goods at stalls, can open on Christmas Day, and Wānaka can open on Easter Sunday. When we look at the point I made, this bill is about fairness and equity because it takes out some of the distortions in how the exemptions currently operate.

The principal changes proposed by Steve Chadwick’s bill are that it enables territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in the districts may open on Easter Sunday after consulting with their communities—and that is the point she made earlier on—using the special consultative process provided in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. It provides that in districts that permit Easter Sunday trading, employment agreements entered into before the bill is passed cannot be interpreted as requiring shop employees to work on Easter Sunday unless the parties to the agreements so agree. I think that is a significant protection for those who have opposed the opening on Easter Sunday. That protection is there under current employment law so they are not required to work if they do not wish.

Of the 54 submissions that came in on this bill—and while I was not on the Commerce Committee, I have certainly analysed these—32 were in support and 22 were opposed. Most of the submissions, of course, as one would expect, came from the business community and those involved in tourism. Tourism is New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner so it is important that tourism operators are able to serve the clients who come in. In my own area of the Waikato there was a very good submission from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. It represents over 250 businesses in central Waikato and its submission stated: “The town and its environs Lake Karapiro, and soon the highly visitor attractive Maungatautari wildlife reserve, lie geographically situated in a part of an area known for its natural beauty. This results in the area becoming an attraction to visitors both from within New Zealand and from overseas.” The point that the submission made here was that Easter Sunday trading was going to be important for the businesses in being able to cater for those needs of those visitors who came into the region.

Many will oppose this, but whether one opens on Easter Sunday will be a matter for shop owners to decide. The protection that employees have in not being required to work, I think, is significant, and with those words I will be supporting the passing of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. I raise this point of order because it is about an issue that is likely to come up in other speeches this evening. With no disrespect to Mr Tisch’s kōrero—I did not interrupt him because he was into his flow—I am suggesting that, in this particular bill, Māori names are likely to be a part of the discussion that will take place tonight. I noted that Mr Tisch, in his speech, pronounced eight to 10 Māori names. For the purpose of us, as a House, taking a lead in respect of the pronunciation of Māori words, I seek leave of the House to simply give a lead on the correct pronunciation of five place names of this country in the Māori language. That will assist all members of the House as we debate this particular bill in the knowledge that those names are likely to come up again during the course of this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, the member can seek leave for anything he wants; obviously that is a matter for the House’s decision. I would just say that we have had a discussion on this matter previously. I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Could I just say that we know where Rotorua is and we know where Taupō is. We have a translator who is being paid to sit up there to tell us what the correct pronunciation is, and if he is not there to do that then we are not usefully using the taxpayers’ money. We did not object to that leave with any sense of malice, but to make the point that if we are going to employ someone here to give the correct pronunciation, and he is meant to be a trusted officer of Parliament without any political, regional, or iwi—and there can be variations—bias, then maybe we should trust him. That is my point. I just want to say, in respect of this bill—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My speech is not a point of order, I am speaking. Could I just say that the bill before the House, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, is a bill that bears a remarkable similarity to a bill put up by New Zealand First where we said that the deciding factor should be what the local government thinks, not what Parliament thinks. Local government—with its retail outlets, its people, and its ratepayers—should decide what is appropriate for them because they can best determine what is the best form of law on the question of retail outlets being opened on any given day in New Zealand where their region or their town is concerned.

I say to the promoter of this bill that we support the legislation, and thank heavens we have finally got around to promoting common sense. It takes a long time, sometimes, in Parliament; our bill has been on the ballot paper for 13 years, and that is a fact—13 long years. During that time Max Bradford from the National Party totally screwed this issue up. Those members over there have not been around here long enough to remember who Max Bradford is, but the National Party utterly screwed this issue up. If that was not bad enough, the ACT party took the extreme view that shops and retail outlets should be open 24/7, 365 days a year.

Hon Member: That was Rodney.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That was Rodney. As a consequence, down went the legislation, which sought to give places like Tauranga and Rotorua the same right that those privileged townships of Taupō and Queenstown have had to open their shops. Really, the law has made no sense whatsoever.

Although I say that, I do support some of the safeguards that the member Steve Chadwick has in her legislation. By that I mean that in places like France there is no shopping on Sundays. France is a country where the visiting population of tourists—in Paris in particular—would be as high as anywhere in the world. Can they go shopping in that country? No. Some of the southern states in the United States have no Sunday shopping at all; neither is any liquor sold.

Some of the proponents of the type of view held by Rodney Hide have argued that shopping restrictions have been a terrible impediment to retail sales in this country. Well, there are some things more important than that and they are family life and community life. These cannot occur unless people have the time to make their contribution. It is a fact that some of the decay in our society today is best explained by the way we have allowed so much of New Zealand’s former family and community life to be attacked in the name of the Mammon of the golden dollar and commercialism—it has not advanced this country, at all.

But there is, and should be, the right for towns to decide, in concert with their retailers, their people, and their ratepayers, whether they want Easter Sunday shopping, and what have you. I just make that point, in case anyone should get the view that this is not something we have supported for a long, long time—with safeguards, as well. I thank my colleague Peter Brown for giving me a chance to speak for 5 minutes. I thought we should make that point. As someone who has been here a little while, I saw the way this issue has been screwed up time and time again by intemperate, extremist members of Parliament. Thank you very much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank the Rt Hon Winston Peters for giving me a lead on the discussion, and I seek clarification around the issue I raised earlier. I did not want to interrupt the member again, but as I understand it, the role of the interpreters in this House is to translate-cum-interpret discussions in te reo Māori. Their role is not to give pronunciation lessons. Thus, the reason I stood was simply to help members of the House; it was not to be disrespectful to anyone in particular.

I seek the leave of the House simply to recognise that the bill is an important bill—it is an important discussion—and I make a stand by seeking leave to give the correct pronunciation for five names only. In light of that, which is a little bit different from the explanation provided by Mr Peters, I seek leave again that the question be put—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just want to check that the member has finished his point of order.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I made the point that no disrespect is intended. It is just to clarify points. I also want to make sure that the integrity of our translators is not put aside, in the sense that I am fairly sure that their position is simply to provide translations, not pronunciation lessons.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I just say to my colleague that that was a very generous offer he made, but there are variations in pronunciation, and, given that the biggest population of Māori in this country comes from Ngāpuhi, it should be my colleague Dover Samuels who is asked to give that interpretation. Those are the problems we have. But I really have nothing against my colleague from the Māori Party giving us, as he said, a lesson, which he also described as not being the job of the translators.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. It is not the job of the translator. But leave is sought for what the member asked for. He has a right to put that again. Is there any objection? There is.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I can only endorse what my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said. We have been trying to pursue this sort of legislation for many a year, and when a bill came out in Winston’s name a few years ago we tried very hard to get the House to adopt it. There are a number of differences between Winston’s bill and this bill. One, as I recall it, is that the New Zealand First bill applied to only Tauranga and Rotorua, whilst this bill will apply nationwide.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ours was nationwide.

PETER BROWN: I stand corrected: ours applied nationwide. But there is another difference, which is that this bill contains some protection for people who might be required to work on Easter Sunday. I have not advised my leader of this, but recently I met with some union officials who outlined that concern, in some detail. New Zealand First is, of course, accepting this legislation in the genuine sense of the conscience vote. Although we are all voting in favour of the bill, we recognise there is a legitimate concern for people who may be required to work on that day.

So when the bill reaches the Committee stage, a Supplementary Order Paper in my name will propose an amendment to make it mandatory for a review, after 2 years, of the situation of workers. In other words, if workers are taken unfair advantage of within the 2-year period—assuming this bill is passed, of course—then the Department of Labour will conduct a review. The department will then report to the Minister, and the Minister will make the findings known to the House. I am hopeful that those people who support this bill will support that amendment. I will be writing to MPs advising them of the Supplementary Order Paper. I apologise that I have not done it as yet; we have only just worked on it. But it is an important consideration. The folk I met with—and I have discussed this with some of my colleagues—have, to my mind, got a major issue of concern. So it is only reasonable that we put in a review process—at least, that is as I see it.

The other important aspect to this bill, which makes it quite different from the earlier bill that was rejected, is that it excludes Good Friday. I understand that the last bill was modified to exclude Good Friday except for certain events or what have you. But this bill makes Good Friday totally exempt as a shopping day. We in New Zealand First view that as an important factor. Good Friday has some very special meanings attached to it, particularly for the Christian community of this country. I am told from the census report that over 50 percent of people in this country still claim to be Christian—and good on them.

One of the major concerns we have is that the current law is uneven, and we know that at times of extended holidays, cruise ships quite often come into places like Mount Maunganui and Tauranga Harbour. The passengers come off the ships and look for somewhere to go shopping. Bus and taxi operators take advantage of the situation by advertising that the shops are open in Taupō, and the operators take them all there. So the passengers come off cruise ships, get in buses and taxis, pass through Tauranga and Rotorua, and go on to Taupō. If that makes sense to anybody in this House, then I ask them, please, to explain it, because I do not understand it. There we have two major holiday resorts, yet tour buses take passengers from cruise liners and drive them all the way through to Taupō. Taupō is, of course—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Taupō.

PETER BROWN: Have I not pronounced that correctly? I do apologise to my colleague; I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess that is the “Pommy-ness” coming out in me. How I pronounce the word is a common way of doing so—but I am getting better.

It does irritate the community in Tauranga and Rotorua, and it is only right and fair that we get standard legislation that goes across the country. This bill does that.

Jacqui Dean: No. It doesn’t.

PETER BROWN: The member says “No.”? I bet the member votes for it.

It is only right and proper that we try to standardise the legislation, in so much as local councils will determine whether shops are open. We think that is fair.

I close by reminding the House that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper in my name to ask for a review of the worker protection clauses. I trust that members will give that serious consideration, and give it some support at the Committee stage.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill in the name of Steve Chadwick. I am very pleased to support this bill. I will start by answering Peter Brown’s contention that this bill will bring a standardisation of the Easter trading legislation. Alas it will not, and that is because of the mechanism that it proposes to use, which is to devolve the decision-making process down to local government. My one fear with regard to this bill is that we will end up with an expensive, lengthy, contentious debate that will split communities. I know that small communities will be split over this measure—as this House has been—and we will get different decisions in different areas. But, having said that, I still support the bill because I believe that although the issue of Easter trading is extremely contentious, we do need to make progress on it.

I am acutely aware that here we have another member attempting—in a long line of members of Parliament who have attempted—to seek reform of the legislation around Easter trading, and to bring some sense into the situation whereby retailers are prosecuted every year for opening their doors on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The arguments have not changed much, either—whether it is about a freedom to trade, a choice of when to open the doors for business, or the bringing of employment and economic benefits, versus the concerns about the acknowledgment of a religious festival, the preservation of family life, or the protection of workers. Each argument for or against the liberalisation of Easter trading has its merits, and each argument needs to be taken into account when making legislation. But we do have a persistent call for liberalisation, and we have to deal with that.

I support this bill because the Wānaka Chamber of Commerce has asked me to help it. Steve Chadwick is representing the interests of Rotorua. Many chambers of commerce and retailers associations are keen to see this matter settled, so that they can get on with business without the annoyance of the annual Easter trading round of prosecutions.

I acknowledge the work put in by all members of the Commerce Committee when considering both bills, the Dean bill and the Chadwick bill, on Easter trading. It was acknowledged by us that notwithstanding all the many objections, the retail sector and many members of society are looking to us for leadership and for a solution to the anomalous situation we have now in the Easter trading legislation. I also acknowledge the large number of submitters who took the time to write and to speak to their submissions. I thank them for the high-quality and well-reasoned suggestions for a way forward.

I received a letter 2 days ago signed by 21 people who wanted me to know their feelings on the Easter trading legislation. I acknowledge that for some people, Easter trading is incompatible with the celebration of their faith. I acknowledge that some people feel that working over Easter cuts into family life. I argue that no one is forced to go shopping, and no one is forced to work, over Easter. Most letters to me have been reasonable, but some have not. I have had two personally abusive letters from people who purport to be men of God. To me, that is not acceptable. I do not think this issue is important enough for that to be done.

Several unions are concerned about the issue of worker protection. Amendments to this bill and to the Dean bill at the Commerce Committee have resulted in several changes. I repeat that no one can be forced to work over Easter. There can be no penalty for declining or refusing to work. Retail workers have 11 statutory holidays and 4 weeks’ annual leave. To me it is nonsense to contend that having to work over Easter will ruin family life. I also note that many retail workers are young and work part-time. They value the extra hours work and the opportunity to earn extra money. I asked many retailers in Wānaka about that during the submission process, and they told me that they have no trouble in finding people to work over Easter.

A number of historical privileges add to the anomalies and inherent unfairness of the shop trading hours legislation as it stands. For example, Picton and Queenstown have exemptions carried over from the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990. Businesses in both those towns can trade on Good Friday from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., with no other restrictions. How even-handed is that? Those historical privileges exist for shops in Picton on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, in Queenstown on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and in Taupō for Easter Sunday only, but they do not exist for other similar tourist areas such as Rotorua or Wānaka. In other words, it is a legislative dog’s breakfast and an uneven playing field. We already have Good Friday and Easter Sunday trading, but just not on a fair basis.

I want to turn to some changes I propose to this bill. I want to signal a change to the bill that I will introduce as a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, should the bill pass this second reading. I propose that the legislation enable a territorial authority to decide whether shops in its district may remain open on Good Friday if a significant event is to occur in the district on that day. I define a significant event as one attended by a significant number of people, including people from outside the district—that is the key to it—and one that brings economic benefit to the district. I believe that the amendment I plan to introduce is a practical, pragmatic solution, meaning that only those districts like Wānaka, where the Warbirds over Wānaka event is held every second year, would be interested in applying for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. If Rotorua or Tauranga, for example, were planning a major event for the Easter weekend, and if the chamber of commerce or a retail group supported it, that body could apply to the city council for an exemption to allow trading on Good Friday. That exemption would affect that district only on that day in that year. Wānaka would apply for an exemption only every second year, for the year that Warbirds over Wānaka is held.

It became obvious during the hearing of submissions on Easter trading that there was broad support for the liberalisation of trading on Easter Sunday. But there was not the same level of support for trading on Good Friday, although a number of submitters did indicate support for it. Some solution needs to be found, if we as a Parliament want to be seen as credible. There was a strong call from many submitters and members of the public for a general exemption for Easter Sunday trading. By far the greatest number of submitters who supported both bills supported a New Zealand - wide exemption. That is why a general exemption by way of a schedule naming each territorial authority is the most efficient measure to adopt.

To devolve the decision making to the territorial authority will mean, as I started to say at the beginning of my speech, different rules for each district. That, I think, is the flaw in the Chadwick bill. But I support this bill because I believe we now have the opportunity in Parliament to get this matter right. I urge members of the House to support the bill.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. The first thing I wish to do is to pay tribute to my colleague Steve Chadwick. This bill started life as a local bill introduced by Steve Chadwick, who was bringing the concerns of her local community to Parliament. It was an effort on behalf of the local authority and the retailers in Rotorua that they be allowed to trade on Easter Sunday as those in other parts of the country were, particularly those in areas with a tourist focus.

I commend Steve for her efforts in getting this bill into the House and for succeeding in bringing it forward on behalf of Rotorua; that is what she has been doing. Along the way the bill has morphed into a member’s bill. Such bills were formerly known as private member’s bills but are now known as member’s bills. It needs to be recognised that the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill started life as a local bill and that Steve Chadwick was representing her community in bringing it forward.

I want to pick up a couple of points from the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean. First of all, I recognise that in large measure—and this refers also to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ contribution earlier—the law surrounding retailing on public holidays or over the Easter break is a dog’s breakfast. I wish that this bill, as proposed by my colleague, could fix it. I suspect that it will not and that it will contribute to another layer of complexity.

I want to say one thing: I also—like Peter Brown, who spoke before me—wish to promote at the appropriate time in the Committee stage an amendment in a Supplementary Order Paper that will do something that was discussed but not passed by the Commerce Committee. I would like to see those workers who are covered by the operation of this bill—that is, those who agree to work on Easter Sunday—for the purposes of employment terms and conditions, treated as if Easter Sunday were a public holiday. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. The public labour under the misapprehension that Easter Sunday is a public holiday; in fact, it is not. It is not one of the nine or 11 public holidays we get.

In the Supplementary Order Paper that I wish to promote, Easter Sunday would be treated as if it were a public holiday for those retail workers and for those who provide provisions—in other words, those who distribute goods to those retail outlets that open on Easter Sunday. The legislation would also cover distribution workers in that respect. This means that by treating Easter Sunday as if it were a public holiday, all of those employees would be entitled to time and a half plus a day in lieu, in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003. That would then test whether retailers really thought it was worth their while to open on Easter Sunday.

We had numerous representations at the Commerce Committee from retailers that it would be worth their while to open on Easter Sunday. In fact, it was imperative that they open and be able to compete with other shops down the road—quite literally in one case. Not far from the area that Jacqui Dean spoke about a moment ago, one retailer a little way out of Cromwell was not allowed to open on Easter Sunday, and another one a bit further down the road was allowed to open, because of the rules as they stand at the moment. The Supplementary Order Paper would really test whether retailers were serious about the gains that are to be made for them in being open on Easter Sunday.

I want to make one further comment: to say that workers will have a choice is true in letter but not in fact. Frequently, these people are working in very small workplaces, they work in very close proximity to their employer, and they work with teams whom they feel they would let down if they were not to work and not to take their rostered day on because they wanted to exercise their right not to work on Easter Sunday. Exercising that right is much easier said than done—that is something we cannot lose sight of. I want my Supplementary Order Paper to give workers additional protection and to give entitlements to people in this sector that they would not otherwise get. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I share my time.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I thank Maryan Street for agreeing to split her 10 minutes. I also want to pay my respects to the member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, who I think is a wonderful, inspiring, and fantastic member for that area. She is a really good member but, with due respect, on this issue she and I agree to differ—a very rare event—in the spirit of great democracy that we have.

I also want to say simply that I strongly oppose the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I believe that it is the thin edge of the wedge. I briefly, but very importantly, acknowledge—notwithstanding the last census, which acknowledged we still have a very significant proportion of people in our country who adhere to a Christian viewpoint and have a Christian faith—that there are but 3 major days when there is no shop trading. Those days are Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Easter Sunday. For that reason, and that reason alone, I oppose this bill. Out of 365 days a year, I do not think it is a big ask, frankly, to acknowledge those days. I believe that it will also be the thin end of the wedge because Easter Sunday will go, then it will be Good Friday, then it will be Christmas Day, and then it will be Anzac Day morning.

I was inspired by a letter addressed to our senior Government whip, Tim Barnett, from an official of the National Distribution Union, which does a great job protecting workers in a whole range of industries. I want to commit this letter to Hansard—if that has not already been done—because it sums up this debate from my point of view as the Labour member of Parliament representing the Hamilton West electorate. The letter states: “I am a wife, mother, and grandmother. I am also a worker at a shop floor, in this case at a major building store retailer in New Zealand.” I will not mention the company or the locality because I want to make double sure that she is not victimised by that major national company.

Jacqui Dean: Ha, ha!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The member may laugh all she might over there, but this is a real issue for ordinary workers who can be victimised. “I am concerned about this store trading on Easter Sunday as are all workers for this chain throughout New Zealand. At Easter this year I refused to work the Sunday and spent time with my whānau instead for cultural and spiritual reasons. Other workers felt compelled to work for the following reasons: (1) Pressure by employers to work as a team. (2) The effect of upcoming appraisals and how it could maintain their current positions; that is, some cohorts were telling their workers that they need to be reliable to improve their conditions and positions. (3) Because of the low wages, workers felt compelled to work knowing that they would be paid time and a half. I ask you on behalf of all workers and as a grandmother to protect what little time we have per year by banning trade for this particular company on Easter Sunday. As an elected delegate I confidently speak on behalf of all the workers in my particular retail chain under management in saying that we fully support the bill to ban trading on Easter Sunday. We look to you and all our Government leaders to protect retail workers from the kind of abuse of power that can happen in corporate-owned companies such as this one in regard to trading on public holidays.”

Yes, we in this Parliament have leverage. We have negotiating skills. Many of the people who put us into this Parliament do not have those negotiating skills. I strongly and passionately believe that this bill is but a thin end of the wedge to further denude working conditions for workers in this country. We have 365 days in a year. Is it too much to ask for but 3½ of those days to be protected? In this country of ours, that is all we have left now. If members go, as was mentioned, to other countries such as parts of the United States of America and Europe—and I was in Germany the other year—they will see how fascinating it is that Germany, a powerful, successful economy, has far more restrictive shop trading hours than we do in New Zealand.

I apologise if the content of my speech appears to be somewhat emotional; it is not intended in that way, but I believe we should give thought to ordinary people in this country who do not have leverage. When those people are told they have to work on Easter Sunday, they will do so.

Finally, we talk about work-life balance. That means that for at least 3½ days out of 365—that is 1 percent—we might have a little bit of work-life balance in terms of at least guaranteeing that a section of our population can enjoy that time with their family and friends. We believe in family values. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): One down, one to go. Now that the bill in the name of Jacqui Dean has been defeated, we can concentrate on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, but that is small consolation. The Green Party is opposed to this bill, and will be voting against it, as well. Some may say that the Steve Chadwick bill is the lesser of two evils. I can understand why Steve Chadwick, as a diligent local MP, may have come under some pressure to put up such a bill. This is not the first time we have had a “We Want To Shop Until We Drop In Rotorua Bill”. However, this bill is also misconceived, and we now have the opportunity to reject both evils. I therefore urge the House to vote down this bill, as well.

During the past couple of months, I have noticed a strengthening of opposition to both the Steve Chadwick bill and the defeated Jacqui Dean bill. The Green Party has received delegations, emails, letters, and petitions that have all been opposed to any attempt to liberalise Easter Sunday trading.

I note that this bill has had its provisions for the protection of workers strengthened in line with the report of the Shop Trading Hours Working Group that was released in June 2003. It is claimed that the amendments to the bill will uphold the right of a worker to refuse to work each time he or she is asked to work on an Easter Friday or Easter Sunday. But the bill does not deal with the consequences of more shopworkers working on another day of the Easter break.

This means that more distribution workers will be required to work, more distribution centres will be open, more truck drivers will be on the road, and more security and cleaners will be needed. Perhaps more public transport workers will also be required. Those workers have no protection under this bill. And do we really believe that these worker protection clauses will protect workers in the real world of retail trading?

Like the previous speaker, Mr Martin Gallagher, I received that letter from a Bunnings Warehouse worker who refused to work when Bunnings again opened illegally this past Easter. That company publicly stated that it was not forcing staff to work. I agree with the worker who wrote the letter that the best defence of workers’ rights is the defeat of this bill. Before I get a call from Bunnings management with a complaint that I am singling that company out, let me say that the same comments can be made about all the stores that opened illegally on the current protected Easter days and that wish to have this legalised and to be able to open at all times on all days.

We could take, for example, the attitude of Mitre 10 in Pētone, which also decided to deliberately flout the law by opening on Easter Sunday this year. “What is a $1,000 fine when our turnover can surpass that amount in 2 minutes of trading?”, one Mitre 10 employee told one of my staff who was shopping on the Saturday and who queried why the company was opening illegally on the following day. My staff member was told that no one there wanted to work on Easter Sunday. Those workers were not paid like it was a public holiday—unlike at Bunnings. They did not get any time in lieu, either. They all just wanted to be with their friends and their families, and not to be at work, at all.

For this House to try to address these issues with the legislation before it is a bit like rearranging the display of moa at Te Papa: it will never bring those precious things back. We have already lost too many things that are precious to us as New Zealanders. I do not want to add Easter Sunday to that list—or Good Friday, or Anzac Day, or Christmas Day. The same logic of consumer freedom, used to liberalise trading on Easter Sunday, will inevitably return to this House next year, pushing for ever more opportunities to sell us something.

So who is supporting this bill? I have received approximately one letter of support for this bill in the last couple of weeks, and that has been from the Retailers Association. I know that many of the big chains support the bill—we have been told that Rotorua businesses support the bill—but there is no evidence of any groundswell of support at all from anywhere in New Zealand.

So who opposes the bill? Retail workers oppose the bill. The retail workers union the National Distribution Union opposes the bill, and its national and retail secretaries Laila Harré and Maxine Gay have been running a tireless campaign against it. The Council of Trade Unions opposes the bill. Churches and Christian groups oppose the bill. Unlike my section 59 bill, which divided the Christian community, there seems to be universal church opposition to the Steve Chadwick bill. I have not heard one church, Christian group, or faith group that is in support of this bill.

Now a number of councils are also coming out against it. Over the last 2 days Auckland MPs like myself would have received two letters from a large number of Auckland and Waitakere councillors, plus the Mayor of Waitakere, Bob Harvey, who all strongly oppose the bill. They oppose it for two reasons. First, they oppose it because they support the holidays for retail workers and families at Easter time. Secondly, they oppose it because they do not want the debate around shop trading hours to be imposed on local authorities. I am sure that if two of the biggest councils in the country feel this way, so will most other councils.

This brings us to those who are in the middle—those who are still wavering on the issue. I was somewhat bemused to read the speech of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce yesterday morning. The timing of the speech was interesting in itself, but so were the comments of the Minister that Steve Chadwick, “having been burnt once before, has worked with me to produce a fall-back position should her Bill fail.” We have to wait until the end of the speech to discover what this “fall-back” position is, and we are told: “Cabinet has therefore instructed the Department of Labour and Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of how the Shop Trading Hours Act, the Sale of Liquor Act, and the Holidays Act operate over Easter weekend and report back options for resolving the discrepancies.”

The Green Party was unaware of this review. The Social Services Committee does not seem to have been aware of this review. No mention of this review has been made in the debate on either of the Easter trading bills. My inquiries today have indicated that this is not actually a new review but part of the Government’s ongoing Quality Regulation Review. I think the honourable member may have taken some liberties in her description of the review, and played those up to the audience yesterday. However, the member may have helped other members wavering on the issue to vote against the bill, on the basis that a review is currently taking place on these same issues, the outcome of which—if further legislation is required—will need to come back to this House. So I strongly urge any waverers here tonight to vote against the bill on that basis and to wait for the outcome of that review.

In the time I have left I will touch briefly on the issue of freedom. Many of the advocates of Easter Day trading say that this is simply an issue of freedom—freedom of choice, and freedom to choose how to spend one’s time on Easter Sunday, in particular. A vote supporting this legislation offers New Zealanders and our tourists one more choice of things to do on the last remaining consumer-free Sunday. People are free to attend church, people are free to gather as families, and people are free to shop. However, the freedom of those having to work in retail outlets across the country on this day is neatly overlooked by the advocates of the argument for freedom.

The rhetoric of freedom has become so entrenched in our society since the neo-liberal revolution that took place in the 1980s that we barely ever stop to consider what freedom corporations and their corporate-friendly politicians are actually trying to sell us. Michael Novak describes freedom in a free-market economy as an “empty shrine” or “wasteland” where common goals used to stand.

Freedom in a neo-liberal world is simply the right to choose either to shop or not to shop, to buy either widget A or widget B, depending on personal preference. Where personal wants come from does not matter; all that matters is that individuals can pursue their wants without the interference of others, especially from the State. Freedom is entirely personal, individualised, and without any higher claim, value, or common goal. If we give an alcoholic plenty of money in a liquor store that is open all hours, then we have an example of perfect freedom in a market-driven world.

The proponents of this bill are arguing that the nature of the good life is a greater freedom of choice. But this is a freedom defined in a vacuum—a wasteland—if one believes we should live in an ethical world. How many people seriously consider shopping to be the centre of virtue and of a good life? No; at the centre of virtue is whānau and family—those things that the Bunnings worker mentioned in her letter, which Martin Gallagher quoted from—the right relationship with one another, and our natural world. We should have time to play, time to reflect, time to worship, time for meaningful work, but also time for a well-deserved rest. Let us not throw this away.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i te Whare. Yesterday I met a woman who described herself as a wife, mother, and grandmother from Whangarei. I suspect that she may well have been the same lady who provided letters to other parties. She is a worker on the shop floor of the local Warehouse. We were pleased to have a discussion with her. She told me that last Easter she had refused to work on Easter Sunday and had instead enjoyed time with her whānau.

She had made her decision for cultural and spiritual reasons. But upon returning to work she became aware that her colleagues had other reasons that had prevented them from being able to make the same decision that she had. She listed those reasons as being, one, pressure by the employers to work as part of the so-called team; two, the effect of upcoming appraisals, whereby it appeared that workers taking off Easter Sunday could well result in the boss claiming that they were unreliable; and, three, because of the low wages, workers felt compelled to work on Easter Sunday in order to earn time and a half. The lady’s letter ended with a plea: “We look to all Government leaders to protect retail workers from the kind of abuse of power that can happen in corporate-owned companies.”

I come to this debate on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill thinking about that wahine. I have some questions for the House. How well do the provisions in this bill express the hopes and dreams of workers for a better future? Do they take into account the views of workers on the shop floor, and their belief that an injury to one is an injury to all? What will the impact on workers be? Indeed, what is the nature of the actual demand for shops to open on Easter Sunday?

I have heard the advocates of Easter trading say that there is a demand for shops to open. I need to tell members that when I was at the Te Hui Ahurei o Tūhoe on the Easter weekend, not one of the thousands of people there—workers and employers alike—made any suggestion that they would rather be working. So who is making the demand?

As the House is already aware, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 first amended shop trading hours. This was followed by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Amendment Act 2001, which allowed garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. That was followed by a list of certain categories of shops that could trade on restricted days. I am told that these changes have made New Zealand one of the most liberalised shopping nations in the world—second only to Iceland. The fact that a precedent has been set, however, should not force anyone’s hand in determining how they vote on the bill. This bill, and Jacqui Dean’s bill before it, suggests some significant challenges to the public policy preference to retain certain special and protected days. We believe that in areas of debate that bring with them such major alterations to public policy, the process must, as a right, involve public consultation, local council decision-making, and ministerial oversight.

We were pleased to see in this current bill that much of the decision making would reside in the context of the territorial local authority area. Indeed, it would be up to councils to determine the decision. However—and it is a big however—allowing local communities to have their say through their councils could have the potential to extend trading way beyond the concept of limited exemptions.

The Māori Party supported the idea of territorial local authorities determining how the Act applies in their own unique situations, but we believe that it would be preferable for exemptions to be granted to limited localities within districts, rather than to the whole territorial local authority area. For example, in Rotorua, the limited locality might be the craft markets; in Auckland it might be the Viaduct or the Victoria Park markets; and in Porirua it might be the North City Plaza.

Here we come to one of the most critical areas in the Stevie Chadwick bill. It relates to the provision for local authorities to consult with their communities on the issue of Easter Sunday shop trading, and then to make a decision appropriate for the area. The bill enables councils to enact special consultative procedures to find out whether the locals want their shops to trade on Easter Sunday. The sponsor of the bill—member for Rotorua Stevie Chadwick—had suggested that the consultative procedures outlined in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 would be used, yet, in a strange turn of events, the Commerce Committee decided instead to recommend that section 83 of the Local Government Act be used. This change cuts across section 81 in Part 6 of the Local Government Act, which just happens to be the particular provisions for councils to consult with Māori communities. If the opportunity to consult with Māori is specifically prohibited by the select committee, we have to ask what that is about.

The National Distribution Union has spoken with us—like others, no doubt—about the possibility of exemptions being granted according to criteria, in order to limit trading to genuine cases. A genuine case would be defined as a significant event being held in the area and a sudden population boom being experienced due to the location being an Easter weekend destination. I think of Whanganui last Easter with the Hui Aranga, of Rūātoki with the Te Hui Ahurei o Tūhoe, of Wānaka with the biennial air show, and of Rotorua every Easter.

Stevie Chadwick and I well know that Rotorua is the place to be, but it is even more so at Easter when our environment becomes really alive and passionate and is in the swing of Latin America. If members do not know, every Easter, Rotorua gets into the groove to the samba and salsa of the Jambalaya Festival, which is the biggest Latin American and Pasifika dance and music festival in Aotearoa. Forget about Dancing with the Stars, the Jambalaya Festival is for 3 days and 4 nights, and Rotorua transforms itself into a massive dance party.

Easter hui, Jambalaya, and air shows, no matter how spectacular, are all significant deviations to the norm—the type of exemption we could envisage as being associated with a major festival. As the member for Waiariki I would have supported a bill that responded to the unique needs of unique places such as Rotorua or of other areas that have a genuine case. I would have supported a case for genuine retailers to apply for an exemption in order to attract the tourist dollar for a specific purpose, rather than that we have just another commercial shopping day. There should be a specific purpose for a specific area. There was always a concern with this bill that the scope went so wide as to include everyone. Worse yet, the select committee removed the provisions dealing with section 81 of the Local Government Act that mandated the requirement to consult with Māori. If the member for Rotorua, Stevie Chadwick, had put up a bill that was specific to Rotorua and had those exemptions in place, I would have happily looked at supporting such a proposal.

I just want to return to the central issue at stake in this bill: the cost of a decent day’s work. “Decent” is an interesting concept to ponder further. Our research says that a comparison of the proportion of employees working 50 or more hours per week, among a selection of OECD countries, shows that New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of workers putting in long hours of paid work. Easter Sunday and Good Friday already have significance to Christians as occasions of special meaning, but in the context of concerns about long hours of paid work, we are also concerned about the possible negative effects for families and children of taking an extra day from the already pressured family calendar. Anyone in this House who is the parent of teenagers could verify that life is so busy that one almost needs to text them with appointments to add family time to their busy schedules, let alone if we were to delete another 2 days from the calendar.

Other research results from Unicef’s international Innocenti report at the start of this year threw up a whole lot of hard questions about how much time New Zealand families have to enjoy being together. Unfortunately, we are lagging behind many economically poorer countries, in variables such as parents spending time with their children and giving them due attention, and families sharing a meal together.

The Māori Party believes that we have to start talking seriously about the way in which New Zealanders balance the ever-competing pressures of paid work with the immeasurable value of quality family time. Workers and families have frequently reinforced the message that the need to earn enough income and the pressure of workplace practices have made it hard—in fact, almost impossible—to have a balanced life.

As we examine our conscience in the process of determining our position on the bill, we must not let the importance of whanaungatanga be undermined. The principle of whanaungatanga recognises that the people are our true wealth, and that an investment in whānau will provide a compelling foundation for future growth. We need to consider the benefits to employers and employees, in order to ensure that there are protections for workers. We need to always hold firm to those who will be with us at the start of the working day, at the end of the working day, and for all the hours in between. In light of that principle, we must vote against the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill and again, for the second time tonight, I am speaking on my own behalf, with this being members’ day. Never before have I valued the role of conscience as much as I have today.

Can I explain to members, particularly those on the front bench of the National Party, that I was never privy to any discussions that fuelled Mr Copeland’s resignation. As I clarified to interested media this afternoon, I have never entertained the idea of leaving United Future. It is my political home and I am 100 percent supportive of both the Hon Peter Dunne and the strong stand our party has always taken on conscience votes, and of Mr Copeland’s right to exercise his.

So tonight I speak on my own behalf. Centre parties are very pragmatic around policy. We attract to ourselves people from a wide range of interests and persuasions, and that is our strength. On conscience issues, we respect individual choice, so United Future will be registering a second split vote tonight on this member’s bill. I will be voting against the bill. The reason I am opposing this bill is not because Easter is a religious holiday for me—one that I value personally. If that was what it was all about, then that would be me imposing something that is special for me on to the rest of the country. That is not my reason.

I remember that in my first reading speech I quoted Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who has a whole chapter about what he calls “public spaces” in one of his very wonderful books in which he talks about the fact that some things we value in society have no economic value, at all. He uses public parks as an example. We take prime real estate—land that could be used very productively for high-rise buildings, office rentals, and retail outlets—and we set it aside and plant it in gardens, because we understand that in the flurry of inner city life, people need somewhere to go to take time out, and that public parks provide that opportunity. Parks also provide public space for families to enjoy recreation together. Yet if we operated under monetary considerations, we would never set aside space for public parks, because they serve no economic good.

I believe that the 3½ days that we have left when huge numbers of people who work in our retail sector can have some time with their families do not make economic sense. But that is not why I am opposing this bill. The reason is that it makes no social sense.

On Anzac Day I went to the service in Whakatāne and really enjoyed what went on there. I spent some time with veterans and others afterwards. And then the shops opened. It occurred to me that in respect of the Easter trading bills we have been looking at, nobody seems to have taken the line that, if there was to be any movement, we could possibly have half-day restrictions rather than cancelling out whole days.

However, I am not sure that even then I could have supported the bill. I will tell members about one of the discussions I had that really affected my decision on this issue. It was a discussion with somebody from the Māori Party, who pointed out to me that for Māori people the Easter weekend is a really important one when extended family get together. Often iwi have sporting events, and it is the one weekend in a year that they can guarantee a really substantial turn-out of people, because of those 2 holidays. I had questioned whether it was fair that we had two holidays like this in the one weekend, and whether maybe one of those days could be spread somewhere else. But, no, I think it is really great that we do have one weekend in 52 in the year when families can get together.

When we look at the huge number of people in New Zealand who work in retail, we have to understand how many families this issue impacts. I do not think that I had appreciated the work that people in retail do and the large numbers involved in that sector until my children became adults. Certainly in their late teenage years they worked in retail for a while, and it was really, really hard to find an opportunity—particularly over the Christmas, new year, and holiday seasons—when we could actually get together as a family. We had 1 day on Christmas Day, but everybody had to leave early on Christmas Day to get back to their work obligations, so even that day was disrupted.

Here we are with a long weekend when families can get together—really, the only one we have left. I was raised in the days when shops did not open on Sundays, and that happened 52 Sundays of the year, or on a whole lot of other public holidays, when we could guarantee that we could have time with our family. My opposition to this bill is based on the fact that I fiercely oppose the notion that we would take away one more hour from the 3½ days that currently exist. I am very pleased that the unions back my approach; I think it is good to see them throwing their weight behind this and behind the retail workers. I think it is an appalling notion, and I am thoroughly opposed to it progressing any further.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, and I rise with pleasure to support Steve Chadwick in the debate on this bill. I think she should be congratulated on her perseverance, as she has had this bill before the House previously. I would also mention Jacqui Dean’s contribution with her bill on the previous members’ day, which the ACT party also supported.

A bill of this type, and a bill of the type that Jacqui Dean put forward, is very familiar to the ACT party. Patricia Schnauer first had such a bill before this House in 1997, during ACT’s first term in Parliament. That bill was defeated after the bill was taken over by Rodney Hide in 1999, when Patricia Schnauer was no longer in Parliament.

We have had a lot of correspondence about this bill, as I guess most members have, and in particular from Steve Chadwick’s own electorate. The Mayor of Rotorua has been very vocal on this issue. I had the opportunity to speak to him about this bill at a Rotary meeting I spoke at earlier this year in Rotorua, and more recently at the chamber of commerce, too.

There are very good business reasons for putting this bill forward, but they are not the only reasons. I think we have moved a long way in New Zealand. Those of us who have done our OE—and I suspect that is just about every one of us—used to make comments after coming back to New Zealand about New Zealand being closed on a Sunday. New Zealand has moved on significantly since then in that regard.

If this bill passes, local authorities in Rotorua, and other local authorities, will now have the opportunity to have a say as to whether shops are able to open on Easter Sunday. I will be supporting Jacqui Dean’s amendment, as will my colleague Rodney Hide, to add Good Friday to this legislation when it comes forward at the Committee stage. Rotorua and many towns like it have been disadvantaged particularly in tourism terms as a result of shops not being able to open and businesses not being able to ply their wares on Easter Sunday.

We face the farce every Easter of garden centres opening, flouting the law, and acknowledging that they will have to pay a fine if they are caught. Usually they are caught and they hand the money over.

Steve Chadwick: Green Party amendment.

HEATHER ROY: Steve Chadwick is quite right—a Green Party amendment. We have the farce of having a law in place that is flouted mercilessly—and for very good reason, because people want to go to garden centres and buy stuff so that they can then go home and participate in their gardening relaxation on a weekend when they have time to do so. The garden centres quite rightfully take advantage of that.

I want to make this call a very short one. Many speakers have said that workers are severely disadvantaged by this bill. Workers have the choice of whether they want to work on Easter Sunday. Some people seem to think that workers have their arms twisted and are forced to go out and work on those days; they completely ignore the fact that many people around this country actually want to work, because they want to earn more money. They do so for very sound reasons. They have families to support and they choose for themselves their work-life balance and the time they spend with their families. They find other times to do that. I have to say that I have no sympathy at all for that argument.

ACT proudly supports this bill. We will also be supporting Jacqui Dean’s amendment to the bill so that Good Friday can be incorporated into the legislation. I hope this bill passes its second reading tonight, because it is long overdue and has long been debated. I look forward to the day when businesses—like individuals—get to make choices about whether they open when the demand from the public and tourists is there.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): In speaking on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill tonight, I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick. She has done what a good local member does—and Steve Chadwick is no doubt a very good local member for Rotorua—and has brought forward an issue that is of concern to her constituency. She has done that in a way whereby she has worked with the Commerce Committee to make the required amendments, so that the bill comes forward in the best possible state for this House to vote on.

However, I will be voting in opposition to this bill. For me, it simply comes down to the fact that when I made my maiden speech in this Parliament not too long ago—about 18 months ago—I talked about work-life balance being one of the main issues that I wanted to address in my role as a member of Parliament. If I apply the test of the work-life balance to this bill, then I find it does not pass muster. I cannot support this bill when it would do so much to disrupt the work-life balance of retail workers in particular, and of distribution workers as well. As many members have pointed out, the bill would also disrupt the one 4-day weekend we have available in this country. That is time that families can spend together: when family members can come from all the four corners of the earth where they now live, and can travel from throughout New Zealand, to gather together. The 4-day Easter weekend is a very important occasion, because it is the only time when we have 4 days in which we can travel, make those journeys, and gather together.

It has been very interesting to listen to the debate this evening, because I have had a bit of a history lesson. I feel even more confident in opposing this bill, knowing that Max Bradford once made a complete hash of the Easter trading legislation. I know Max Bradford as the man who tried to take everyone’s holidays away from them and to sell workers completely down the tubes.

Peter Brown: Who stopped that?

SUE MORONEY: I think it actually might have been Labour that campaigned against that. In fact, the unions campaigned very strongly against it. The unions, of course, have campaigned strongly against the bill that is before the House at the moment.

I feel very good about being able to stand up and voice my opposition to this bill on that basis, but also because doing so allows me to pay homage to three particularly important areas in my life. Voting against this bill allows me to uphold the principles of my trade union activism, which is a very strong aspect of my background. Voting against the bill also allows me to uphold the principles of the religious upbringing that I had. It is a great day for me in the House when, with one vote, I can please both sides of my background—both my trade union activism and my religious upbringing. May I say it is not the first time that that has occurred, because the principles underlying both trade union activism and religious affiliation are very closely aligned. Opposing this bill allows me to please both sides. The third aspect that the bill also brings out for me is the issue of being very focused on family life. Those three issues—trade union activism, religious affiliation, and caring about families and the time that families have together—make absolute sense to me in my opposition to this bill.

Earlier in the debate this evening, the member for Piako, Lindsay Tisch, stood and talked about the submission that came forward from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. I want to talk to the House about that submission in more detail, because I think it underlines one of the real ironies, and perhaps one of the inequities, in what the House is actually considering. What the member for Piako did not alert the House to is that although the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce wished for retailers in Cambridge to have the right to open and trade on Easter Sunday, in fact almost all of them choose not to open on every other Sunday of the year. Although Cambridge retailers by and large do not trade on most Sundays of the year, they have come forward and asked to have the right to trade on Easter Sunday.

When we talk about fairness, a level playing field, and equity and equality in this situation, I think we need to be really clear on what we are talking about. Cambridge is a town that does not have a particular event happening over Easter. No great numbers of people are flocking from elsewhere to go to Cambridge. But what Cambridge does have—as most small towns in New Zealand have—is lots and lots of traffic driving past on that weekend. That is what Cambridge is trying to capture. So those members who think that by voting for this bill, they are really just focusing on the few places that have particular festivals happening at Easter should please think again. Cambridge—not the people of Cambridge, but the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce—is asking for Easter trading. No particular festival happens in Cambridge, but lots and lots of traffic drives past—as it does past most small towns in New Zealand. That is what will drive many of those communities to consider this measure; it will not be an issue of whether they have a significant event that happens in those communities.

I also want to draw to members’ attention the issue of the 3½ days we have left in the year when it is not lawful for all of the shops in this country to open carte blanche. That is important. There is lots of work still to be done in this country; there are lots of issues still to deal with. But, really, the chance to shop on an extra 3½ days—is that really the most pressing issue that we need to consider in this Parliament? I would say it is not. I would say it would be a backwards step if we were to cut any further into those 3½ sacrosanct days.

As I was considering this issue, I noted that over the most recent Easter weekend we had the most fabulous weather. We had brilliant weather for people to get out and do things with their families. It struck me, when I was spending time with my family on Easter Sunday, that the location I was in had shops that opened illegally on that day. What I chose to do—and what lots of people chose to do with their families—was spend time walking along the beach with my family. I think that is a wonderful thing for people to do at Easter—and at other weekends, as it happens.

There are people in this Parliament who think that it is the right of anyone to open his or her shop doors at any time the person pleases, and that the issue is about freedom. Freedom for whom? The freedom to shop until you drop? The freedom to do something that can be done on however many other days there are in the rest of the year? What is 365 minus 3½? I do not know; that is not my strong point. Whatever that number of days is, that is when people can get to do their shopping. So what is it the freedom to do? And what freedom do the workers in the retail sector have?

I want to reply to those members who, I think, are very well meaning and who are interested in the worker protection provisions that this bill brings forward. I just remind them that in the real world, and in the real workplace, it is not easy for 16-year-old retail workers to point to a piece of legislation they do not even know about, and to say to the boss that they have the right to refuse to work and to have those days off. That does not happen in the real world. In the real world all sorts of subtle pressures come on people to say, yes, they will work on those days—even though they will not necessarily be compensated any differently from how they would be on any other day of the year. Those subtle pressures include the action of the employer, by right, in offering to people particular rosters that may or may not suit them, and the issue that has already been canvassed that when performance appraisals or promotions are coming up, bosses may possibly be better disposed towards workers who agree to work on Easter Sunday than towards those who do not. Those are all the sorts of things that actually happen out there in the real workplace.

In closing, I bring forward a quote that really nails this issue for me. It is from the Catholic bishops of New Zealand. They talked about the role of this Parliament in ensuring we have a society that is humane. Their comment about bringing in Easter Sunday trading was that they believed that it would lead to a “society less human”, and I agree with that statement. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I initially supported the previous bill on this topic, Jacqui Dean’s Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill, which was so ably spoken to by my colleague Mark Blumsky. I appreciate, having been a member of the Commerce Committee that examined these bills, that it was decided to run the two together as they had a similar objective. My choice to support Jacqui Dean’s bill was driven mostly by the fact that it obliged Parliament to actually make a decision on the issue that it would then be responsible for implementing. The difference between that bill and this one is that with this one Parliament is making a decision that will then be devolved to local authorities, which will have to make their own decisions.

I note the point raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but it raises in my mind the difficulty that if Parliament cannot make up its mind on this issue and apply it, why do we imagine that it will be easier for local authorities to make up their minds? I seem to recall a measure of support for that particular view within the membership of the Commerce Committee—and it was an enjoyable committee to be part of. However, that option has gone, and we now have to look at this bill, which requires the territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in their districts may open on Easter Sunday, and also requires the territorial authorities, before making any such decisions, to consult their communities by adopting the special consultative procedure provided for in section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. I am personally not comfortable with the way this matter has been handled, but I accept that it is part of the bill, and is probably now not significant enough to seek to amend it.

This particular bill relates to shop trading over Easter, which has always, in my memory, been a contentious issue. I guess that it is a case of those who want it most not achieving everything they expect from it, but those who want it least finding, hopefully, that it is not quite as bad as they expected it might be. There have been a considerable number of submissions on this bill, and I was impressed by the sincerity of the carefully considered presentations that the committee received.

There were religious objections, which to some extent have been modified and lessened, perhaps, by the exclusion of Good Friday from this particular bill. I think that will be very pleasing to a number of people whom I know had serious concerns over that. As a practising Presbyterian, I have full regard for the religious significance of Easter. Indeed, for many Easter is a more sacramentally significant season in the Church than Christmas is. Throughout my career, though, I have engaged in a number of activities associated with agricultural work, and agricultural work is a 7-day-a-week industry. I have frequently been obliged to work over the Easter period. I have never, though—and I have gone right through my mind on this—been prevented from making it to church on Good Friday or on Easter Sunday. The reason is that the Churches recognise that not everyone has discretion about when he or she can attend church, and usually within communities services are held at a variety of times so that options are available. People might not always go to the churches they usually go to, but, as I say, I have never had difficulty in getting to a church.

Speaking entirely for myself—I feel that in religious matters I am authorised to speak of my own feelings and not of those of others—I have never felt disturbed, from a religious point of view, by anything that others choose to do on Easter Day. I do not think the majority of devout people expect to impose their personal religious views on others who do not hold them.

A most compelling argument, though, to my mind, came from my parliamentary colleagues in the Māori Party, who expressed extreme concern during the select committee discussion over the fact that this bill affects holidays and family get-together opportunities. I think it was Hone Harawira, when speaking to this bill, who said—[Interruption]—ha, ha; I am getting a measure of support here—that Easter is really the only 4-day occasion when we can have a holiday legitimately. In other words—I think these were his words but I will make them my own—people do not have to throw sickies or invent reasons for not being at work. That is a significant feature of Easter—the 4-day holiday. I know that in the area I live in, on the West Coast, grandmothers always expect grandchildren and families to come home for Easter.

I am not sure that the select committee met that objection by building in safeguards for worker protection, but the bill does override conditions of employment to the extent that they are inconsistent with the requirement of the bill. I have listened to previous speakers, and I really wondered whether the people speaking recently from the other side of the House were actually Steve Chadwick’s friends or not. They seemed to ignore the fact that the select committee had put quite a lot of work into the matter of employment conditions and avoidance of compulsion in terms of people working over the holiday period.

There is no doubt, though, that it is no accident we have two bills going in the same direction from both sides of the House. The opportunity to shake off some of the regulated aspects of our lives does not come very often these days, under this Government, but—by gosh—the events of today and perhaps over the next few weeks will probably change that. Someone said to me today: “You know, Chris, political power ebbs and flows; the flows are getting longer and the ebbs are getting shorter.” I thought I would pass that on to my friend Charles Chauvel; I knew that he would like it. The flows are getting longer for National, and the ebbs are getting shorter—and Labour members know it.

The trade union representation at the select committee was sincerely delivered, and concentrated on conditions of pay, compulsion to work, etc. Again, it was an understandable approach, because those people were representing their members.

I listened to speakers on the previous bill, and I was a little surprised at some of the views expressed. They were clinging to the sanctity of the Easter holidays without any reference to the religiosity of the holiday’s origin. As a liberal Christian, I see no reason for the implication that religious holidays should be imposed on those without religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation. I believe in religious freedom, and I believe in personal freedom—the freedom to adhere to religion, or not. I guess, though, that the reality is that Easter is seen as a general holiday rather than purely a religious one.

That there is a demand for Easter trading is a reality. For food distributors, I understand that Easter is already bigger than Christmas in terms of turnover. I note the strident call of members of the Labour Government, speaking on behalf of their particular interests, about working hours and about people being without the choice whether to work. This bill, as noted by Mr Flavell, embodies worker protection. As a member of the select committee, I am conscious of the efforts of the committee to ensure worker and employee protection. There is no compulsion to work, and no penalty for deciding not to—and any opinion beyond that shows a lack of faith in the parliamentary process. I would have expected better from a Government that makes all sorts of claims about itself—claims that are fading. The long flows are coming, and the short ebbs. We always know when there is trouble in the Labour Party leadership: if we look at the junior whip, we see that his smile has become fixed; his smile has become a Botox smile—Botox is injected in there. He says that everything is fine, but the very bits of paper he picks up shake when he reads them.

I suggest that members stand back a little from ideological issues and look at the situation from a practical and commercial point of view. Where I live on the West Coast of the South Island, most shops shut at 5 p.m. on the knocker, Monday to Friday. Come the weekend, most Coasters exercise their work-life balance and pursue recreation, sport, or family activities. I can honestly say that work-life balance was practised on the West Coast long before it became a buzzword, long before it came into vogue. If many shops on the coast were open at Easter, I doubt they would get much trade.

This bill does not make it compulsory for shops to open. It does not compel people to work. But it does allow choice. It will not damage religious celebration. On that basis, I support the bill. It is significant that it is one of two members’ bills that go in the same direction. I think it merits a wide range of support. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Tau Henare: Here we go—comedy hour.

DARIEN FENTON: Here we go? OK—well, especially after that last speech! I will be voting against the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. Although I understand why my very, very good colleague Steve Chadwick is sponsoring this bill—and may I say she does a very fine job as the member for Rotorua—I support the more than 200,000 workers in the retail industry who are opposed to this bill. I must say that I have not heard a lot of talk about them. Their views are very important in this debate, because they are the ones who will have to do the work if this bill passes. They are saying a very loud no. If they are paid for it, they are not paid anything extra. Why should they have to work on Easter Sunday when everyone—

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, come on!

DARIEN FENTON: —and when Mr Henare gets a holiday on Easter Sunday. He gets time to spend with his family. Let us consider the life of a shop worker. Clearly, the Hon Tau Henare has never worked in a shop.

Lynne Pillay: He’s never worked anywhere.

DARIEN FENTON: He has never worked anywhere—that is true! The life of a shop worker is not an easy one. Most shop workers work in supermarkets, department stores, or smaller retail outlets. They are low-paid workers; indeed, many are paid youth rates. They can be required to work on any of the 7 days or nights in a week, in the weekend, and on most public holidays. Their start and finish times can be very different every day. They are highly casualised and they have low levels of unionisation, which means they have little power to negotiate on an individual basis. Around 65 percent of shop workers are under the age of 18 and in their first jobs, and they know little about their rights. That makes them particularly vulnerable, and that is what I am concerned about.

The problem with this bill goes further up the food chain, as well. The bill affects not only shop workers but also distribution and transport workers. The pressure will go on them, as well, to deliver goods to shops for Easter Sunday. So I support retail workers in their determination to put a stop to the never-ending quest for increased working hours that has pervaded our working culture.

Because of the debate around Jacqui Dean’s bill before Easter this year, I took particular notice of what was happening around me where I live in west Auckland. Yes, the retail shops were closed on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday. Did the world end? No, of course it did not. I did not notice signs of major shopping withdrawals around the streets in Auckland. I did notice that it was easy to buy petrol, to get stuff from dairies, to hire a video, to go to the garden centre, or to go down the road for a latte, because the law already provides for that. However, I saw families not shopping but enjoying the day together—going to the beach, walking around the waterfront, and going on picnics. I want that to continue. If everybody is working, that will not be able to happen.

Other speakers have referred to the problem we have in New Zealand of an exceptionally long working hours culture. We all like to talk about work-life balance, and it is good that the member Chris Auchinvole has work-life balance on the West Coast, but may I tell him that we have it nowhere else in the country. It is something that is acknowledged as being important not only to individual workers and their families but also to employers and the economy. It is important that people find a good balance between paid work and other aspects of their lives, and when this balance is not found, people may suffer from stress or anxiety. Long working hours, or non-standard working hours, compromise work-life balance, along with productivity, skills development, and the ability of employers to recruit and retain workers. This bill does nothing to address the never-ending demands for work intensification and longer hours. It is time we stopped for a minute and thought about that, because it is creating community and family problems.

A recently released work-life balance snapshot by the Department of Labour confirmed the trend of increasingly long working hours. Nineteen percent of workers said they work more than 50 hours a week. Hours of work vary for 40 percent of those workers: 18 percent do shift work, and about a quarter work extra hours at work in their own time to get their jobs done, often without pay. The 2001 Thirty Families – Work Hours report commissioned by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions also showed that the hours worked by many families are too long, with many working an average of 45 to 50 hours per week and some working even longer hours. Almost all of those who were surveyed regularly worked more than 45 hours a week, and they regarded those hours as long, unreasonable, and with significant negative effects on their own lives and the lives of their families.

I acknowledge that the Commerce Committee endeavoured to address workers’ issues in the bill, in particular the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. Although that is admirable, I have to say that some of the contributions in the House tonight show that some members live in la-la land when it comes to the workplace. Members should imagine what it is like for young shop workers in their first jobs, and what incredible bravery it would take to say no to employers who wanted them to work on Easter Sunday. As others have said, when people are working in a team it is very easy to convey a message that they are letting down the firm and their workmates, and that it means that their jobs could be affected. Whether that is right or wrong, that is how people see it. Shop workers also know that if they say no, some other poor sucker will have to cop working on that day instead. So we do need to be realistic about what life is like for young retail workers in this still very deregulated labour market. It is hard enough for older workers in more established industries to say no.

I want to mention a couple of members’ Supplementary Order Papers that have been talked about tonight. I will consider Mr Brown’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper, of course—if we get that far—but I think that once we have let the genie out of the bottle, checking on whether workers are being treated fairly 2 years down the track will be a little hard. It will be really hard to put things back. I say in respect of Maryan Street’s Supplementary Order Paper that it is better than what is being proposed. It will be good, if it passes, that workers will get Easter Sunday recognised as a public holiday. But I also think there are a whole lot of other workers out there—hospitality workers, who will be working alongside shop workers in many instances, and working in the cafeteria or the bar next door on Easter Sunday—who will not be getting time and a half, and a day in lieu. They will quite rightly feel aggrieved, and I think that will lead to a demand for Easter Sunday to be recognised as a public holiday for all workers.

The problem I see is that we have few regulations around working hours. Regulations were done away with by those members over there who were in Government in 1990. The only thing that workers can rely on in terms of regulation is their employment agreements. If an employment agreement is a union agreement, the worker will be fine; the agreement will have provisions for reasonable working hours and a health and safety requirement. But let us be honest: in small retail shops workers are not likely to be considered where pressure is on to deliver maximum profit. So I do not support any extension to working hours in whatever form and in whatever industry.

The bill as reported back provides for territorial local authorities to allow shops in their areas to open after consultation with the community. I have talked to some territorial local authorities and they have said to me that this is not a responsibility they want to take on. The letters from the Auckland City Council and the Waitakere City Council make it clear that those bodies do not support the bill. They urge us to cherish the number of shopping-free days we currently enjoy for the sake of our families and communities, and for the sake of shop workers and their lives.

I note that there is a proposal—it was referred to earlier—to review how the Shop Trading Hours Act, the Sale of Liquor Act, and the Holidays Act operate over Easter weekend. I would welcome that. It may provide a way forward, but I would not support any proposal that resulted in a blanket right to trade on Easter Sunday. We have a chance tonight to put a halt to the increasing demands that we see on workers for more and more hours to be worked.

Chris Auchinvole: Oh, yeah!

DARIEN FENTON: That member does not do it, so how does he know? It would be good if for once in this Parliament we could agree on 1 or 2 days of the year where we do not have to have shopping, and agree that families should be put before commerce. It is time that members of this Parliament started to think about the people who do the work in the retail industry instead of themselves, and instead of the commercial imperatives that drive the issues behind this bill.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 57

Anderton (P)	Coleman (P)	Hodgson (P)	Tisch (P)
Auchinvole	Collins (P)	Key (P)	Tolley
Bennett D (P)	Cullen (P)	King C (P)	Tremain (P)
Bennett P (P)	Dalziel	Mapp (P)	Wagner
Benson-Pope (P)	Dean	Mark (P)	Wilkinson
Blue	Donnelly (P)	McCully (P)	Williamson (P)
Blumsky	Dunne	Paraone (P)	Wilson
Brown	Finlayson	Parker (P)	Woolerton (P)
Burton (P)	Foss (P)	Peachey
Carter D (P)	Goff (P)	Peters (P)
Carter J (P)	Goodhew (P)	Power
Chadwick (P)	Goudie (P)	Roy H
Chauvel (P)	Groser	Ryall (P)
Choudhary (P)	Hawkins (P)	Simich (P)
Clark (P)	Henare	Smith L (P)	Teller:
Clarkson	Hide	Stewart	Guy

Noes 64

Ardern (P)	Fitzsimons	Mackey	Soper (P)
Barker	Flavell	Maharey (P)	Street
Barnett (P)	Gallagher	Mahuta (P)	Swain (P)
Borrows (P)	Gosche	Mallard (P)	Tanczos (P)
Bradford (P)	Harawira	Moroney	te Heuheu (P)
Brownlee (P)	Hartley (P)	O’Connor	Tizard (P)
Carter C	Hayes	Okeroa (P)	Turei
Connell (P)	Heatley (P)	Pettis (P)	Turia
Copeland	Hereora	Pillay	Turner (P)
Cosgrove (P)	Hobbs (P)	Rich (P)	Wong (P)
Cunliffe (P)	Horomia (P)	Ririnui (P)	Worth (P)
Duynhoven (P)	Hutchison (P)	Robertson (P)	Yates (P)
Dyson (P)	Jones (P)	Roy E
English (P)	Kedgley (P)	Samuels (P)
Fairbrother (P)	King A	Shanks (P)
Fenton	Laban (P)	Sharples	Teller:
Field (P)	Locke	Smith N (P)	Hughes

Motion not agreed to.

New Zealand Day Bill

Second Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) on behalf of Judy Turner (Deputy Leader—United Future): I move, That the New Zealand Day Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to move this bill on behalf of my very loyal colleague Judy Turner. I had the privilege of introducing it to the House in 2005 to provide for a replacement of Waitangi Day with New Zealand Day. I am aware that since that time a lot of water has flown under the bridge, and there has been a significant change in the way in which New Zealanders view these things. I think that is reflected in the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report. I note that the committee is recommending that the bill be discharged. I personally am not opposed to that course of action, but we will vote for the second reading this evening.

Let me explain my reasons. My passion in promoting this bill originally was to give New Zealand a national day that could bring all of us together, whatever our backgrounds, to celebrate the unique gift we possess by virtue of the fact that we are New Zealanders. I drew from the original New Zealand Day that Norman Kirk had established as the old Waitangi Day in 1973, and that was the basis for the original bill. I note that the select committee has drawn attention to a couple of things that I think are important. One is an increasing feeling amongst New Zealanders that Waitangi Day has a degree of speciality associated with it that should not be touched, and I am bound to say that, on reflection, I accept that view. But the select committee has also noted that there were a number of submissions presented to it about the idea of there being a national day separate from Waitangi Day, and I am attracted to that also. So although I will support—and we as a party will support—the second reading of this bill, knowing it will be discharged, we will do so because we support the idea of a national day.

That raises the question if not Waitangi Day, then what day? I think here is where the problem becomes somewhat more difficult. I have had suggested to me, over the last 3 or 4 year, a variety of alternative national days for New Zealand and I am bound to say that, in my humble view, none of them quite fit at this stage.

Let me run through each of them and give some argument as to why I do not think they are appropriate. The most commonly suggested day is the old Dominion Day, 26 September. Incidentally, that date this year will mark the centenary of when New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907. The difficulty I have with that is that although it celebrates our self-governing status, it is still within the realm of what was then the British Empire, and, as a republican, I am not personally persuaded that we should be celebrating a day that commemorates our heritage within the British Empire. I also think that a national day, if we are to develop a new one, should be something that is contemporary. The other day that has been suggested—I forget the precise date; Mr Finlayson may know it—is the date on which we acceded to the Statute of Westminster in 1947. It is a date in November. I think there is more merit in that day, but frankly it is not a day that is well known to most New Zealanders.

Then we come to a number of other alternatives that have been suggested. I note that the select committee received submissions that Matariki should be the day or the period in which we celebrate a national day. There is some merit in that, except that it is essentially a moving feast and therefore very difficult, when that day might shift from one year to the next, to have a precise day. I have also had some more novel suggestions made to me that bear some consideration. The most common of those is that we pick a day of some significance in New Zealand’s history and commemorate it as a national day. The day that is most commonly suggested is the day in May that commemorates the time when Sir Edmund Hillary first conquered Mount Everest. That, I think, is a day that does have some merit.

But I am bound to say that of all of the options the one I am most attracted to, both in terms of relevance and a smooth transition, is the option to replace the existing Queen’s Birthday weekend with a national day weekend. I think the logic of that means we are not adding an additional public holiday, so the idea of economic cost is less. That option has been raised with me by a number of people. What some have said to be important is a mid-winter period of holiday, and I think that is relevant. I also think, in terms of where New Zealand is today, that is something that is more in tune with this country’s needs.

I raise those examples by way of alternatives, and I sense from the reaction of the House that there is favour and disfavour with all of them. I want to signal to the House that I am continuing to work through a range of options with a number of interested parties—and I am getting submissions on this constantly—and in due course I intend to bring a new proposal to this House that hopefully will be more in line with where public mood and sympathy are today. I accept there is no public wish of substance to substitute Waitangi Day with New Zealand Day. I think that moment in our history has passed by, and I am not proposing to do that. But I do think that the wider argument of what constitutes a national day and how we might bring a new one together is one we ought to be engaging in constructively.

So although I welcome the consideration of the Justice and Electoral Committee and note its recommendation, United Future will continue to support this bill, not because of its specific content but simply because it keeps the argument alive and it requires New Zealanders to engage upon what is the best day to celebrate the unique fact that we are all New Zealanders, whatever our circumstances or background, and we take pride in our country’s future.

Earlier in the debate when the bill was first introduced, and certainly around some of the anniversaries each year that occasion debate about this matter, a number of people in the public were scornful of the notion that we should have a national day like Australia’s. The date 26 January is the day when Australians of all colours, creeds, and backgrounds come together to celebrate being Australians. They do it in a typically loud and outspoken way. It is great to see those sorts of celebrations occurring, but I have been surprised by the number of New Zealanders who said that the last thing we want is a brash display of nationalism like Australia Day. I think that one of the things that gives Australia its national character and ethos is, in fact, what goes on on Australia Day and that an important part of what a national day for New Zealand should involve would be a similar celebration whereby we actually lay aside for one day of the year our differences and celebrate the things we have in common as a nation.

I hope that although this bill will clearly not proceed, it will be the start of a process that will lead us to have a mature and careful reflection about what an appropriate national day for New Zealand is. I have raised some suggestions tonight. As I say, they are by no means exclusive; others will come forward. I think it is time we took the opportunity to allow that debate to percolate, and over the next few years to make a reasonable decision that can stand the test of time. I thank those who made submissions on the bill. I thank the select committee for its consideration, and I thank the House for its attention to this matter.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I must say that even when the MP for Ohariu-Belmont, Peter Dunne, is talking gibberish he looks and sounds statesmanlike, and I applaud him for that. Mr Dunne said in his second reading speech that the New Zealand Day Bill was introduced by him in 2005, but it was not, actually. It was introduced in October 2004, and it languished for some years in the Justice and Electoral Committee until earlier this year. But under the dynamic and tough chair of our select committee, Lynne Pillay, we managed to get on to it in about March. She demanded that we look at this bill with some urgency, so we all obeyed. We read the submissions, although we did not hear oral submissions, and the bill has been reported back to the House.

As the commentary on the bill states, the select committee recommends that the bill not be passed. We saw no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day.

It is very interesting to look very closely at the legislative history over many years, because the legislative history is important. Indeed, history is important. I remind the member for Ohariu-Belmont of the words of Cicero: “Not to know what happened before one was born is always to be a boy.”; or, as Mr Henare would say: “Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.”

Chris Auchinvole: I heard him say it.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In fact, he said it just the other day. So I am going to undertake a painstaking analysis of the legislative history of Waitangi Day.

Jacqui Dean: No!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For whoever called out “No”, bad luck, because I am going to start with 1941. Apparently—so Sir Walter Nash said in 1960—in 1941 a ceremony was brought into being in regard to Waitangi Day. So informally we had a Waitangi Day celebration. It was not until 11 October 1960 that the soon to be former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Walter Nash, introduced a Waitangi Day Bill. The purpose of that bill, Sir Walter said, was to set apart 6 February in each year, the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, as a day on which to commemorate the signing of the Treaty. In that original bill, power was given to the Governor-General, who, by proclamation, could set apart Waitangi Day as a public holiday in any locality or localities. I recommend that if any honourable members are interested they should read the debate in 1960, because it explains very clearly why the term “Waitangi Day” was so important and fundamental to New Zealand.

Then in 1973 the next step was taken to have the day made a public holiday throughout New Zealand. It was Norman Kirk’s Government that introduced the New Zealand Day Act 1973, which basically renamed Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day.

With a change of Government in 1975, the National Government, under the then Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”. The second reading on 2 September 1976, reported in Hansard, Volume 405, at page 2273, has an excellent speech made by the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon D A Highet, who explained the rationale behind the term “Waitangi Day” and the importance of Waitangi Day. I quote from some of what the late Mr Highet said: “The event that Waitangi Day commemorates was important to the early development of our nation. It was an occasion when two races treated together in mutual trust and expressed a desire for peace. Both races displayed a desire to protect the other from the consequences of misunderstanding and ignorance of the other’s customs.” Later on, he said: “While recognising that relations between the races are still by no means perfect, it is the ideals of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the spirit in which it was signed, that we wish to remember and preserve in our society—the spirit of mutual trust, and the desire for the peaceful resolution of our problems.” It was then that the legislation enacted a change to New Zealand Day so that it became Waitangi Day, as it always should have been.

That is a potted history of the way the term has developed over the years—

Darren Hughes: Tell us again!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If the member wishes me to. Walter Nash—

Hon Member: He should have listened the first time.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member asked for it. In 1960, Walter Nash introduced a Waitangi Day bill. In 1973, Norman Kirk introduced the New Zealand Day Act, then, in 1976, Rob Muldoon, that great liberal, introduced a Waitangi Day bill that brought back the name “Waitangi Day”.

That is how we come to this misconceived legislation of Mr Dunne. He charitably analysed the submissions, but the reality was that we received 22 submissions and most were utterly opposed to the bill—some in quite trenchant terms. The report of the select committee analyses the submissions. I particularly want to refer to the conclusion of that report, because we were very strongly and unanimously of the view that the bill should not proceed. We saw absolutely no benefit in renaming Waitangi Day as New Zealand Day. Indeed, we thought that such a change at such an important and sensitive time of our country’s history could foster social disharmony in New Zealand. It goes without saying that everyone on the committee saw that the term “Waitangi Day” is one of immense historic, cultural, and social importance, tied as it is to 6 February. That is why we were of the opinion that there was absolutely no merit to this legislation. That is why everyone on the committee voted against the bill proceeding.

There we have it. It is misconceived legislation. My advice to Mr Dunne is to pay more attention to New Zealand’s history. If he did, he would see that the legislation is totally out of step with the mood of contemporary New Zealand. It really shows the dangers of not thinking things through. It is rather like his bizarre call last Friday for a complete review of the law of evidence 6 months after the Evidence Act 2006 had been passed by Parliament under the excellent chairmanship of the select committee of Mr Fairbrother, who is cackling away there now.

In conclusion, if members look at international comparisons, they will see that the French do not call Bastille Day “France Day” or “French Day”, and the Americans do not call Independence Day “America Day”; both those days are tied to enormously significant historical events in the life of those countries. So too with Waitangi Day. It represents the occasion when Māori and Pākehā met—[Interruption]—I have not finished—when the two races met and signed a treaty that was a treaty of trust and mutual respect. It is a sacred day and to change that day’s name to “New Zealand Day” would be singularly inappropriate. That is why the select committee strongly was of the view that the bill should not proceed, and why National will not be supporting this legislation.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee to take a call on the New Zealand Day Bill and to say that I really enjoyed the Hon Peter Dunne’s speech. In effect, he said he had had a change of heart about this legislation. I could say that a year or two ago this bill may have had quite a bit of support from the members on the Opposition benches, because that seemed to be the way things were politically at that time.

I would just like to acknowledge and thank Mr Finlayson for his lavish praise of my chairing of the select committee. I have sometimes felt a little sad that he tends to praise Mr Fairbrother for chairing the subcommittee, and I have felt, not being one of the legal fraternity, that I am missing out a little, so praise from Mr Finlayson is praise indeed.

I would like to say in respect of this issue that I certainly agree with the Hon Peter Dunne and Chris Finlayson that this bill should not proceed. The committee certainly gave the bill quite a bit of thought. Although we did not ponder over it, we gave it really meaningful thought. We reflected, in terms of renaming Waitangi Day New Zealand Day, on what Waitangi Day meant to all of us. I note that a similar bill that had the same aims was debated by this Parliament in May 2000, and it was voted down by 76 votes to 42. So we are pretty much on track in terms of the committee not supporting the bill.

I believe that Waitangi Day is the most important day in our history, because it is the day on which we celebrate that we have a Treaty—the Treaty of Waitangi. That is something that is absolutely unique to New Zealand, and I know that the Labour Government feels that to denigrate that in any way would take away something that is very special and unique to New Zealand, and that it is something we should feel very, very proud of.

The underlying reasons for the bill do not sit with Labour’s commitment to acknowledging our national history in its absolute fullness. We do not need a fresh start in this country. I think we have a heritage and a history to feel very proud of, and I think Waitangi Day actually celebrates that. Certainly, from time to time—every Waitangi Day—there is an opportunity for some debate or protest, but I think that is healthy, and I think that is what makes us unique as a nation. We can look at many nations throughout the world that do not have a treaty and that also do not have the ability to raise and canvas arguments, and run debates. I am really proud that we are not in that situation in New Zealand, and that we are in a position where we can really celebrate our history on this important day.

I heard Peter Dunne talk about the possibility of a national day for New Zealand, and that is certainly something that this Parliament may want to canvas or look at. That is a really good, healthy, and sensible thing to do. On this particular bill, however, we received 22 submissions, and I note that the majority of those submissions were opposed to the bill. Although we did not hear all of the submissions, we were able to look at their flavour. Thankfully—and this does not always happen in a select committee, but it does happen quite frequently on the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee—there was a meeting of minds. I note to this House that the recommendation that the bill not proceed was a unanimous recommendation from the committee, and that is a very good thing.

Submitters suggested that renaming Waitangi Day would diminish the significance of the Treaty. I agree with that, and I agree that that could be quite harmful and insulting to Māori. Several submitters believed that renaming Waitangi Day would not defuse racial tensions, but rather that it would create further division in New Zealand. I think that that certainly would be the case. Although I acknowledge that it was not in our party’s mind to do that, nor was it in the minds of the representatives from the National Party and the Green Party on the committee. I think we saw no benefit in changing the name.

As we have talked about before, the merits of another national day, similar to our neighbour’s, are something that I look forward to exploring and canvassing. But I feel really proud of the Treaty, and I know how significant it is for many families. I acknowledge Dr Pita Sharples, who has, I know, for the last 3 years—if not more—opened up the marae in Waitakere to the public to talk about Waitangi Day and its significance, which has made large numbers of members of the community feel very welcome. I think that is very significant.

I have met with a number of people for whom it has been their first experience—many of them are actually Kiwis, but, also, many are new settlers. When I think back to the last Waitangi Day at Hoani Waititi Marae, I remember that there was actually a large contingent of Asian—both Chinese and Indian—people there, along with some people from the UK, who found the whole experience absolutely mind-blowing. I was proud as a westie to celebrate the events we have in west Auckland, but also to celebrate what makes us a nation that is very proud and unique—the celebration of Waitangi Day, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the partnership between Māori and Pākehā in New Zealand.

I think that there is not much more to say. I can see Chris Auchinvole waiting eagerly to take a call. He is very enthusiastic. I have to say that he was not actually on the committee at that time.

Chris Auchinvole: Why not?

LYNNE PILLAY: Well, he just was not a member of the committee. But I am sure that had he been a member of the committee—

Hon Member: He was a member of the committee.

LYNNE PILLAY: Oh, I am sorry. He normally has so much to say that I do not notice if he is there or he is not there. I am really sorry. He was probably not there when we gave our primary consideration to the bill in the early days, because as Mr Finlayson said, it had been on our workload for some time. Mr Auchinvole was not there, but I know that since he has been there he has made a very large and vocal contribution to the committee, and it is very much appreciated. I am sure that he will be taking a call some time—if not tonight then in the near future. But it is with great pleasure—and this may sound a little incongruous—that although I do not recommend the bill to the House, I am really proud to stand and speak on it.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): This bill went to the select committee, as members have just told the House, and it was recommended that it does not proceed. New Zealand First shares that view. We thought the select committee got it exactly right. But go back a few years—we just had a history lesson from Mr Finlayson a little while ago—

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.