Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I move, That the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill be now read a second time. I want at the start to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the hearing that it gave this bill and the suggestions it has made for the House to adopt, all of which I, as sponsor of the bill, concur with. I will go to those at the end. I am not going to breach Standing Orders by acknowledging the Mayor of Lower Hutt, who is in the gallery today, because if I did, then it would. Therefore I will not. But Ray Wallace, when he was campaigning for the mayoralty and when elected mayor, declared war on graffiti in Lower Hutt, and has had a coherent approach with a team for rapid action in private areas where graffiti is visible and where access is approved by the owners, and, in public areas, for rapid response, often the first day that it is reported. But also there is a coherent programme of art for kids and other things in order to move some of the real talent on to positive work.

The main aim of this bill is to empower the city to remove graffiti that is on private property where the owner cannot be found or identified in order to give consent or, for that matter, to decline. I do want to make it clear that if owners do not want graffiti removed, then it will not be removed. What this does is fill a gap in the law, which was the cause of quite a number of eyesores in Lower Hutt—and actually around the country as well—where there are, effectively, absentee owners, people who have semi-abandoned properties where they pay the rates, maybe, or pay them very late, but they are completely out of contact. Some of these are Kiwis who have shifted offshore, but in New Zealand more and more there are cases of overseas companies owning small commercial areas where maybe they have not made a good investment, and, as a result of that, there is an inability to make contact with them.

It is my view that having a lot of graffiti around and a lot of tagging in a community is a signal of a lack of social cohesion. It gives a perception of danger, it does reduce property values for owners who are nearby, and it has a detrimental effect on the image of a city and often, therefore, on its well-being. Under the Summary Offences Act 1981, if people are caught in the act, there is some deterrence in there, but it does not give the ability to clean up graffiti on private property unless there can be good contact with the owner.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a range of submissions—not a large number but a range of submissions; most of those, I think, made useful suggestions—and has recommended some changes to the bill. The first of those changes is to clarify the purpose statement to state that the purpose of the bill is “to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place.” So if the graffiti is inside or it is around the back, it is not the role of the council—it is not wider—to remove it. It is what is visible from a public place.

There is a definition of graffiti, and I want to thank Holly Walker for the work that she did in that area. It is a definition that essentially picks up the definition consistent with the Summary Offences Act 1981. Another amendment requires a council to state on the graffiti removal notice the power relied on, so that people know which section of the legislation is being used, and requires the person removing the graffiti to take a copy of that notice, and also to have adequate identification with them when they are removing the graffiti. On the vast majority of occasions—the way that this works in the Hutt—it is a contractor who is doing that work, and it is not seen as a problem for all of those staff to carry identification, because my understanding is that they do anyway.

Probably the biggest change that the select committee made was that in the bill as introduced there was a protection from civil liability, from civil proceedings arising out of actions conducted in good faith, even if there was not reasonable care. That has been removed and the select committee decided that it was appropriate to rely on the general provisions of the law, but also acted on the briefings of the council that it is its requirement on its contractors to carry public liability insurance. That public liability insurance is already being carried, so there is not an additional cost as a result of this change. What it does is put people who are implementing this new legislation on the same basis as other people who are doing graffiti removal, whether or not they are council employees or contractors, as are used in the Hutt.

I would like to finish where I started and that is to congratulate the Hutt City Mayor, Ray Wallace, on this initiative, and to say that I am proud to be the local member for Lower Hutt, and I want to thank the select committee and the House for their good work on this bill.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : I rise to support this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I have to say that I think it is a good, practical, straightforward local bill brought to us in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. The Local Government and Environment Committee canvassed the issues widely. We made a few amendments and some minor tweaks, and we are now returning the bill to the House.

As we have heard from the Hon Trevor Mallard, the bill empowers the Hutt City Council to enter private land within its district, and to take action to remove graffiti from a building that is in public view. We have already heard that it is not about stuff that is round the corner; it is about graffiti that is there in the community and makes people feel as if the community is being neglected. This council does have a significant problem with graffiti, but it also has very good processes to deal with it. It works very cooperatively with property owners and people who are in the community, and they are generally supportive. It has a very good rapid graffiti removal process, and I think that it is something that other councils might need to look at. However, there is an issue with some property owners, and often these property owners may be absentee landlords who do not respond to the council’s requests to gain access to remove graffiti. This bill will solve that problem.

There were seven submissions on the bill. The majority of them supported the bill, and there were some suggestions and some concerns. Actually, the main concern was the lack of a definition of graffiti. There were submitters, and even members of the select committee, who wanted to be sure that there was a clear distinction between art and graffiti. We are very aware that there is a whole new genre of graffiti art, and we wanted to make sure that some inspired artwork, perhaps by young people in the Hutt, was not destroyed by mistake by people who were thinking they were cleaning up.

We made three major amendments. The first was the insertion of a definition of graffiti. We chose a definition that was consistent with section 11A of the Summary Offences Act 1981. In this case it identifies “graffiti” as something that damages or defaces “any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing by writing, drawing, painting, spraying, etching, or otherwise marking it”. The definition has two provisos: that the work is done “(a) without lawful authority; and (b) without the consent of the occupier or the owner …”.

Submitters were also concerned that owners and occupiers needed to know under what authority the councils were operating, so we made an amendment that required the council to state on its graffiti removal notice the source of the power relied upon, which, of course, is this bill. We also wanted to make sure that the council’s workers, when they are cleaning up the graffiti, are easily identified, so clause 7 requires council operators to take a copy of the notice that they have served, and to carry identification when removing graffiti. As the Hon Trevor Mallard has stated, this is quite simple, it is already part of their processes, and the operators seem to be working well in the community.

Finally, there was clause 8, which sought to protect the council from civil proceedings arising out of actions done in good faith, but without reasonable care. As I have said, we have heard about the successful graffiti eradication programme, and the fact that the Hutt City Council was spending up to $500,000 a year to keep its city free of graffiti. We also heard that it had a very experienced operator who did an excellent job and was particularly good at matching the colours of the paintwork. That sounds like a trivial thing, but if you have ever been involved with cleaning off graffiti, the matching of colours is particularly important. However, the select committee still felt that the council should not be exempt from taking reasonable care when removing graffiti from the buildings, so we deleted clause 8 so that the council had the same responsibility that we would expect of others. I believe that the council was happy with that decision.

Overall, I think this is a good bill and I think it will serve the Hutt City Council well. In fact, I think there may be demand from other councils to have similar legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the staff of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and all the members who worked hard on this bill. I would like to thank our advisers, and I would like to congratulate the Hutt City Council on bringing this bill to the House. I think it is a job well done.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I join the two previous speakers, Trevor Mallard and Nicky Wagner, in supporting this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill, brought to the House by the Hon Trevor Mallard, a very good local member who works hard in his constituency. I would like to congratulate the Mayor of Hutt City, Ray Wallace, whom I would never mention is here to witness this today. The work that was done by Mayor Ray Wallace and his council is to be applauded.

I would like to also thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. This was one of those bills that went through the select committee very well chaired by Nicky Wagner, who gave good opportunity for people to make submissions and for there to be input on what was seen to be a very sensible piece of legislation for a local community.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Put her on Finance and Expenditure.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Perhaps Nicky Wagner would like to chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee. She has got a very good way about her. I would have to say that I would like to see this bill extended across many councils throughout New Zealand. I hope it does become a Government bill. Perhaps Trevor Mallard, as a new Minister in the next Labour Government in 2½ years’ time, might like to take this issue up, to become part of Government legislation.

I have to say that I was highly annoyed when I went out of my house last week and found, on my dark green garage, a piece of tagging. There was absolutely nothing artistic about this tagging on my garage, at all. So I say to Nicky Wagner that there is a difference between something that looks appealing and attractive, or even acceptable, and somebody’s ridiculous scrawl over your garage. The worst thing about it is that you do not necessarily have any of that paint left to paint it out.

I think this bill is a very good move for local authorities. This move is because they had a particular problem out in the Hutt. In fact, Lower Hutt is on a par with one of the worst areas for tagging in New Zealand. The worst tagging is tagging that is not removed from private property. Businesses are very keen to get it off their businesses. Most residents are keen to get it off their fences, but there will always be some private residents who do not actually live in the area or who do not get around to cleaning it up, and what it does to a community, I think, is give a message, somehow or other, that people do not care about their community and that they do not have pride in it. And, as Trevor Mallard said, it can make the place look as if it is unsafe. So removing graffiti from private property as soon as possible is very important, particularly if the private resident does not get around to doing it.

We looked at this bill, and actually there were not a lot of changes made to the original bill. One of the things that we did do was clarify the purpose statement to state that the purpose is to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place, and could not be any wider. This is not about a grab by local authority to invade people’s private property and slap its paint on other people’s property; it is very much narrowed to the removal of graffiti on private property that is visible from a public place.

There was some concern at the initial stage that maybe councils might misuse this power. We also said that we require the council to state on the graffiti removal notice the power that it is relying on. We also require the person removing the graffiti to take a copy of that notice and to carry adequate identification with them when removing the graffiti, because it is important that the right people do the job and that they have got the right authorisation.

These were some of the minor things that we actually did correct in the bill itself, but, overall, it is a very good bill. It is supported by members of this House. You know, sometimes the public out there think that we spend all our time battling with each other over legislation and issues. There are times when we come together on an issue and we agree. I think there would be very few people around the country who would disagree that graffiti is unwanted in our community. If we can do something to remove it as quickly as possible, then it is good for all of us. Of course, those who tag your property would like to see it there as long as possible. It is kind of like showing off, only it is showing off at the expense of innocent people who do not deserve it.

Congratulations to the Hutt City Council on this bill. We support it, and I hope that it can be looked at for other councils in New Zealand.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to make just a brief contribution to support the colleagues who have previously spoken on both sides of the House for this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. It is a good, pragmatic piece of legislation in that the processes that this council is currently required to go through to clean up graffiti makes it impractical, too difficult, and an additional cost for ratepayers. Effectively, what the bill is doing is enabling that to be cleaned up more effectively.

You could take a very pure, private property perspective that says that there is a really high threshold for allowing people to go on to a person’s private land and to add paint or do other work. That is, effectively, the basis for the pretty strong protections that exist in the current law for council officials going on to property to clean up graffiti. What is so pragmatic, and, in my view, necessary about this bill is that graffiti actually collectively makes our communities worse. We all know that communities that are covered in graffiti get an overall atmosphere of lawlessness that actually drags down communities. That is where I join with others in congratulating the Hutt City Council on the work it has done in this area.

I also think that by removing the graffiti as quickly as possible, you detract from the satisfaction of the vandals of seeing their artwork, signature, symbol, or whatever you want to call it being displayed for longer. It is true that those communities that get rid of the graffiti quickly have less of it, and that is a further reason why we should support this bill. My hope, as one of those who believes in strong disincentives for those who get some perverse satisfaction from graffiti, is that the Hutt City Council might gang up with the police and with the courts with some of those that are caught, and actually have them scrubbing off and doing some of the painting to remove the graffiti. I suspect that they will have to do that only a couple of times to realise what elbow-exhausting work it is and will then be a bit more respectful of both public and private property.

The last point I want to make is that I suspect that this is a bill that, if successfully implemented in Hutt City, is something that we will want to apply across the rest of the country. Yes, this issue of graffiti is a particular issue. There are actually surveys that show that, sadly, Hutt City is more adversely affected by graffiti than many other communities, but actually it is a problem throughout New Zealand. I am hopeful that Hutt City is able to show that this is an effective new tool for councils to be able to quickly remove graffiti and that, further down the track, Parliament could look at applying this law more broadly.

It is a good bill. I commend the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and Trevor Mallard, the sponsor of the bill. We should put it into law. We should give the Hutt City Council these powers. Let us see how it goes, and be open-minded about extending it nationwide.

HOLLY WALKER (Green) : I am very pleased to be able to take a call to speak in the second reading of this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. This is a bill—a fairly unassuming piece of legislation—that will always hold a very special place in my heart. That is because it was the first piece of legislation that I ever rose to speak about in this House, back in the first reading debate at the beginning of this year. It seems particularly fitting, as someone who was born and raised in Lower Hutt and lives there still, that it is a Hutt City Council piece of legislation that has this particular honour for me.

I want to congratulate the Hutt City Council on its ongoing efforts in swiftly dealing with vandalism in our city, and also to congratulate it on at the same time channelling the energy and creativity of many of our city’s talented young people into positive street art projects, like the mural of TanaUmaga and PiriWeepu in Wainuiōmata. I think this council has shown a real willingness to support and empower young artists, and a positive, identity-building support of street art that improves our city, and I hope that that support will continue long into the future.

But this bill is not about graffiti art or street art. It is about vandalism, and particularly tagging, which does have a tendency to proliferate on buildings in the Hutt Valley that are abandoned and unoccupied. We have already heard that the Hutt Valley has a particularly high rate of graffiti vandalism compared with other parts of the country. Where this occurs in public spaces the council already has a current and very successful and rapid response to this, with an excellent response and removal programme that has proved very effective for removing tagging from public property.

Rapid removal is important in this context, because we know that the more tagging and vandalism that exists on a building, fence, or wall, the more of that it is likely to attract. For an example, I need look no further than around the corner from my own home in Pētone, to the site of the former Pētone College, or, even before that, Pētone Technical College. It is very sad to see the state of that once thriving school site, which is now abandoned. It is covered in tagging, its windows are smashed, and it was, of course, recently the site of a major arson. In that particular case, I guess the only solace we can take is that that site is soon to be redeveloped into a retirement village, although I have long wished that it could once again be used for educational purposes. But that site, which I certainly would not feel safe entering, is an example of why rapid removal is very important, because as tagging and vandalism proliferates, people begin to feel unsafe. Many residents in the Hutt Valley have identified graffiti as an area of concern that does make them feel unsafe. We know that it can discourage people from engaging actively in their community, so a rapid response is important.

The problem is that tagging and vandalism in the Hutt Valley are often a particular issue on abandoned or unoccupied private properties, and in those cases the council does not have the legal ability to enter those premises to remove it. It certainly has the willingness and the capacity, but it does not have the legal right, and that is what this bill seeks to address.

It should be noted that it is not the intention of the bill that the council should be able to enter private property and remove graffiti that the property owner consciously wishes to remain there. In fact, owners in that situation will be able to respond within 10 working days to the notices issued by the council to say “Thanks, but no thanks; I want to leave that particular piece of art there.” The council and its contractors will take no action if that is the case. That is an important provision for respecting the rights of property owners, and I was pleased to see that provision extended from 10 days to 10 working days, to really make sure that owners have had a chance to exercise that right if they wish to.

This is further reinforced by another very important amendment that the Local Government and Environment Committee has made, and that is to insert a definition of graffiti into the bill. This was something that I first raised with the mayor and with Trevor Mallard, the sponsor of the bill. In fact, I first raised it before I was even elected as an MP—which just goes to show you how keen I am about local issues in the Hutt Valley—because I was concerned that a lack of definition really meant that we were not making good law. Good lawmaking should include clear definitions of its terms, so I am pleased to see that that definition quoted by Nicky Wagner from the Summary Offences Act has been inserted into the bill by the committee. There are two important qualities of that definition. It talks about graffiti as being only that which is there without legal authority, or without the consent of the property owner. Authorised street art, whether it is authorised in public spaces or authorised by the owner of the property, is not included in the definition of graffiti in this bill, and that is very important.

I was also concerned about the provision that would have exempted the council and its contractors from civil liability, if they accidentally damaged the property while on the premises to remove graffiti. That is especially important, because it is important to acknowledge that this bill does allow the council to enter property without the knowledge, potentially, of the owner. If they have not responded to the notice within 10 working days, the council may enter the property. So I was pleased to see that the select committee saw fit to remove that exemption from civil liability. We did hear that the contractor who does this work actually has public liability insurance already, so they would not actually need this provision in order to be able to safely carry out their work. But also this provision did create some concern, and some concern was expressed by submitters about the potential for damage caused by contractors. So I am pleased to see that that has gone, and that the council is happy with that.

Last time the House considered a graffiti removal bill, which was the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, the Green Party opposed it. We did that partly because of concerns about a similar civil liability clause, as well as the wider Draconian provisions of that bill. So I am very pleased to see that a more reasonable, consensus-based approach has been taken to this bill, both by the council and by the select committee. I would like to say, however, that our support of this particular bill and its local ramifications for the Hutt Valley, where I am from, does not necessarily guarantee that we would support similar bills in other jurisdictions in future. We would have to consider those on their merits, and on a case by case basis.

I would like to conclude by congratulating Mayor Ray Wallace and his council and thanking them for both their proactive efforts to remove graffiti, but also their efforts to channel the positivity and the creativity of youth in the Hutt Valley into street art and graffiti art projects. I would like to congratulate Trevor Mallard, my colleague in the Hutt South electorate, on bringing this bill to the House, I thank the select committee for working very constructively on this bill, and, of course, I thank those who took the time to make public submissions. I commend the bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) : I stand in support of this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I think the reason it has got widespread support across this House is that everyone in this House acknowledges that when communities look bad, they feel bad, and that we do need to take some action to make sure that our communities are looking as good as they can. So I do want to congratulate the Hutt City Council and Mayor Ray Wallace, and also my Wellington colleague Trevor Mallard, on bringing this bill to the House. It does give the Hutt City Council the right to remove graffiti from private property. This is an issue that is not just, as many members have already mentioned, particular to Lower Hutt. It is also an issue in specific parts of my electorate of Mana.

I do acknowledge that although this bill gives the Hutt City Council the ability to crack down further on graffiti, we do need to acknowledge the work that is already being done to eradicate graffiti—the work that is being done by our local bodies and also by our police to crack down on those people who think it is wise and fun to go out and tag public and private property. I agree with my other Wellington colleague the Hon Annette King that there is an element of “cats spraying their territory” to tagging, and the sooner that we can take down graffiti from public places, the sooner that we can crack down on these people. I am not sure whether they are all necessarily young, but most would be young, and that behaviour may lead on to a higher level of offending. In that respect it is making communities feel much, much safer.

I want to acknowledge that Trevor Mallard in his first reading speech said that this, if it is a success, could be extended out beyond the Hutt City Council area. As the member for Mana I have had conversations with Porirua City Council officers and also councillors and the mayor, and they would be very keen for these powers to be extended to them if indeed the Hutt City Council graffiti experience with this bill is a successful one.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the Porirua City Council is doing. Holly Walker spoke earlier about rapid removal of graffiti, and the Porirua City Council is certainly on top of that. But it also looks to implement positive things in the community, such as murals, which have also been mentioned in this debate already, to ensure that there is a good look and a good feel about a community, therefore bringing the spirits of the community up. As Trevor Mallard spoke of before, it does also have an effect on property prices.

I think we all in this House have been victims of graffiti, usually about every 3 years. When election time comes around we are victims of graffiti. I put a hoarding up on my house, and 45 minutes later someone had got to it. I went inside the house, and there you go! Someone had managed—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But in my case it’s always an improvement.

KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, that is right. Trevor Mallard is still using his photo from 1995, I believe—

Hon Trevor Mallard: 1987.

KRIS FAAFOI: From 1987, sorry. So there is a fair bit of airbrushing that needs to go on. I should not talk for too long in that respect.

As I said, this bill is something that could be broadened out, and I would welcome the opportunity for this to be stretched out to the Porirua City Council. As I have mentioned, we would certainly welcome that—I, as a local electorate MP, and the local body representatives.

I do want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. It has made what Trevor Mallard has said are some practical changes to the bill. I note the fact that we are making much more explicit in the bill what graffiti is, and also that we have to have a much more explicit system around notification for those people who are private property owners, and whom we are going to contact, within the provisions of this bill. We are also making sure that the officers within the council have to identify themselves explicitly. I think those are all practical measures in the bill that have come through the select committee stage and are fitting.

As I say, I think that the three local bodies in my electorate—the Wellington City Council, the Porirua City Council, and the Kāpiti Coast District Council—would all welcome being given these powers if the Hutt City Council experience is a successful one. There are some property owners within the Mana electorate who have defied requests from the council to try to get on to their properties to remove a significant amount of graffiti. Although this bill does not compel them to remove that graffiti, it does give the local body another option to try to remove the eyesore from the public view.

In terms of making sure we crack down on that “looks bad, feels bad” factor, I think this is a positive thing, and I think the acknowledgment from across the House that this is a positive thing means that we can all stand here within this Parliament today and support this move by the Hutt City Council and my Wellington colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : National supports this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. A number of speakers have noted today—and throughout the course of the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration and also in the first reading debate—that graffiti on private property within public view has a negative impact on anybody who sees it, whether or not you are a visitor to the particular town or neighbourhood. You see the graffiti day after day after day and you just go: “Ugh!”. It has a negative impact.

We saw recently up in Counties-Manukau a really good example of how graffiti can do huge damage to a neighbourhood, but then, subsequent to that—once it has been dealt with and had a bit of community input as well—how it can have a really beneficial impact on a community. The Law and Order Committee did a visit to Counties-Manukau. We went to a neighbourhood that comprised a liquor store, a dairy, and a takeaway store, and not only was the whole little block of shops covered in graffiti upon graffiti upon graffiti, but also it was dirty, there was rubbish all around, and the grass was growing. It was not a good place for the community—there were houses all around—and we were told by the community constables that children going to get something after school, or going on an errand for mum to the dairy, were prone to be stood over by various gangs and groups of people, and it was not a very safe place for them.

So together the police and the local community tidied up the graffiti, with the cooperation of the local shopkeepers. That community input and tidying up, critically, the graffiti on those buildings have seen a complete change in that community. The afternoon we were there it was after school and there were kids going into the dairy and buying ice creams and the things that kids buy from dairies after school all around New Zealand—maybe not ice creams down south; it is a bit cold at this time of year—like hot chips and that kind of thing. The community was restored to something like what it should be. A large part of that was due to the removal of the graffiti and the willingness of the community to deal with the problem.

That is what we are seeing in this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. The local authority has identified a problem—and good on it—and it has identified a solution. This House supports that approach. If, indeed, other local authorities, when this bill has passed through the House, wish to take up the opportunities presented by this local bill, then good on them. They, together with their communities, can overcome some of the problems presented by graffiti vandalism.

As I have said, and as the House has demonstrated, this bill has enjoyed wide support and a very collegial passage through the Local Government and Environment Committee, ably chaired by Nicky Wagner, but also with good input from all committee members. One of the things that the committee needed to tie down was a good definition of “graffiti”. Under the Summary Offences Act of 1981 “graffiti vandalism” means a person damaging or defacing “any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing by writing, drawing, painting, spraying, or etching on it, or otherwise marking it … without lawful authority; … and without the consent of the occupier or owner or other person in lawful control.”

The select committee did make a number of recommendations to amend the bill as presented. One of those was in clause 3, which was to make it very clear that the purpose of this bill was to allow the removal from private property of graffiti that is visible from a public place—that is, if any one of us were driving through town, or walking along the footpath, and that graffiti were visible from the street or the footpath. The purpose of this bill is to allow the removal of that graffiti from private property. That took a little bit of working through. When introduced, the bill had a wider and broader effect than really, I believe, was intended by the local authority.

We recommended amendments to clause 5 to include a definition of “graffiti” that was consistent with the Summary Offences Act. We also recommended amendments to clauses 6 and 7 that would require the council to state on the graffiti removal notice the source of the power it relied on. The amendments would also require people authorised by the council to take a copy of the notice served under clause 6(3), and for them to carry an adequate form of identification when removing graffiti, so that it was clear to anybody who took notice of what was going on that the person removing the graffiti was empowered to do so. We also recommended deleting clause 8, which seeks to protect the council from civil proceedings arising out of actions done in good faith. The reason for that is the committee does not believe that council employees should be given such protection, when other local authority employees are generally not. It is just applying a little bit of consistency.

I have noted that graffiti impacts negatively on the image of a city, of a neighbourhood, of a street, and of a town. It also has a negative impact on property values, and that is certainly not a good thing for any of us. Many councils have a zero-tolerance policy on graffiti. Some remove it for free from private properties, and places like Wellington City Council provide free kits so you can remove it yourself. So there are a lot of options there, but we are now considering this Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. It is a good bill. It takes account of private property rights, it takes account of community interests, and it has enjoyed a lot of support through this House. I commend it in its second reading.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Andrew Little—my apologies. I have a habit of doing that. It is Andrew Williams—sorry.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is a case of “three counts and you’re out”. I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, alongside the other parties. I concur with the comments made by fellow members of the Local Government and Environment Committee in respect of the good merits of this bill. Congratulations to the Hon Trevor Mallard on bringing it to the House on behalf of Hutt City Council and Mayor Ray Wallace and his team. Well done to them for putting this forward.

I have had a little bit of involvement with graffiti during my 9 years in local government, and I was informed, I can recall, that tagging apparently originated on the subways in New York. That was where it first became of significance—many, many decades ago. It spread from there, and somebody picked up—

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Kilroy was here”.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: What was that?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was English.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Was it? Unfortunately, with the age of television in New Zealand, somebody saw what was happening in New York, and it was picked up in New Zealand and it kicked off. So people—

Hon Trevor Mallard: This was 1920s England.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Yes, I know. This was New York that I was told about. It is unfortunate, because, as other speakers have commented, communities that have high levels of graffiti tend to also go along the lines of increased crime and increased activities such as vandalism and other negative things towards a community. It is disappointing when that occurs. When you go to some countries and you see no graffiti at all, it is very, very welcome. It is certainly nice to go to places where there is no graffiti, and some countries and some communities have been able to achieve that.

I can recall that, from the North Shore City Council’s point of view, at one stage we were spending up to $600,000 a year on graffiti, tagging, and vandalism. We managed to reduce that significantly over a period of 4 or 5 years when we dedicated a tagging team of several staff members, who started mapping and profiling the taggers and building up profiles of the regular taggers. When they were able to catch them, with the support of the Waitematā district police, they were able to then take them to court and try to get some restitution. Taking photographs of the tags and building up a good profile of the regular offenders certainly did reduce tagging significantly. In many cases, and in many cities and communities, it is only a handful of people doing much of the damage, and they can be prolific. They can get around significant amounts of geographic areas. It is very disturbing when one person, or a handful of people, can do so much damage.

It is also very disturbing for people. I can recall one Sunday being rung by an elderly gentleman who was most disturbed that their whole cul-de-sac near their retirement village had been graffitied. It was all over the tarmac of their cul-de-sac. They felt almost invaded. They felt that they and their community had been attacked, in a sense. I was very grateful to the staff at the time and to the people who did our tag removal on the North Shore. They moved in and had it removed within about 12 hours. It was all gone. They actually sandblasted the road and removed the tagging. That was a great relief to the people, who felt at the time, you know, most threatened by this horrible tagging all over their street.

One of the things we also did—and I know that many communities are doing this throughout New Zealand now—was make sure that access to aerosol cans and some of the various things that they use to put the graffiti on is restricted. This is a good thing. Communities most certainly must ensure that, wherever possible, they restrict access to, particularly, aerosol cans in lockable cabinets from the various DIY stores and hardware stores. Also, ID should be required to purchase them when they are being sold to people of perhaps a more youthful age, and those selling them can inquire as to what the real purpose of the purchase is. That is a good thing. I certainly would hope that responsible retailers throughout New Zealand will be doing that. What we certainly do not want to see is the likes of what was occurring in the past, which was corner dairies and corner shops selling aerosol cans. You knew full well that the main purpose of the purchase of those cans was certainly not to go home and do their homework or decorate some form of furniture; it was to go out and tag. Therefore, restricted access to aerosol cans is a good thing.

New Zealand First does have a couple of concerns. One is that, of course, the lid on the budget for the police and police resources is putting more pressure on the councils and the local authorities to do the likes of this work, when, in fact, if there were greater police resources and a bigger budget available to the police to apprehend many of the offenders, perhaps the source of the problem would not be there to the same extent. Instead, we have the situation where you are having to be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff to fix the end result, rather than stopping it in the first place or apprehending those in the act. We certainly—from New Zealand First’s point of view—would like to ensure that in the future there are increased resources in policing to do the likes of the mapping and the profiling and the keeping of good registers of the main tagging offenders in order to properly apprehend them, take them before the courts, and have them correctly dealt with by our justice system to try to get either restitution or, certainly, community work out of some of the offenders and actually make them remove some of the works they have been guilty of.

There will definitely be other councils in New Zealand that will want to see this moved on throughout the country, and I certainly would hope that this is the beginning of it becoming a nationwide policy and a nationwide Act in the future, because it has merit. Again, we seem to be getting a lot of piecemeal legislation where one community can benefit from it, while another community literally over the road will not, and that is a shame. In the likes of the Wellington area, where there are some hot spots for graffiti, this would certainly be advantageous and very helpful to them. So I would certainly hope in the future that this Government or the next Government, with New Zealand First involved, will take this on to more of a national basis and ensure that all communities in New Zealand can respond in the same manner.

Just in closing, I congratulate those involved with this bill. I also congratulate the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill was handled in a very collegial manner. We did work through this and all the various issues. We did cover off some of the concerns about the authorities and some of the civil rights issues that were involved. Therefore, it is good legislation that we have as a result, because it has been hashed around a great deal and has been fine-tuned to come up with a very good solution that was acceptable to everyone. Congratulations again to Trevor Mallard on bringing it forward. Well done. This is a good piece of legislation.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to speak on the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, and other members, but I also acknowledge the local member for Hutt South, Trevor Mallard, for bringing this bill to the House. It is not often that we have a collaborative approach on some of these matters, and just on this local bill we have had a very, very collaborative approach.

I think at the heart of this bill are a couple of basic principles—actually, some principles that are very close to the National Party’s heart—and they are safer communities but also private property rights. I just want to talk a little bit about that, but I also acknowledge from the speech of Kris Faafoi, a Labour member of the House, that many of us have been victims of graffiti, so we personally know what it is like to have your property damaged. Some of us, or a lot of us, have been involved in campaigns, so we have mastered the art of removing moustaches and various other things from hoardings with a bit of meths and a rag. That is a very small example of how it feels to have your property damaged, but I think there are many members in this House who know what it feels like to have that lack of respect and to have your property damaged.

I think the other point that I would make is that we in this House can pass legislation that may try to rectify some of these issues, but underneath it we must always remember, as well, that the basic principle—and we know from some of the statistics that a lot more young people are involved in graffiti—of teaching people respect and the value of other people’s property is not necessarily something that will come from legislation. It comes from families. It comes from communities. But I think that this bill will help in a couple of ways. The first thing is, if we are able to remove that graffiti in a timely manner in the Hutt area, then what that says to some of those young people who do it for a particular status is that we are not going to tolerate it. We also know that if that graffiti does hang around, it is more likely that there will be other graffiti and that communities will be less safe. So I think it does help to be able to make communities safer and reduce crime.

What has been great about this collaborative process in the select committee is that we have seen some very valuable amendments, and I want to touch on them. One of the amendments is around the definition, and I think it was Holly Walker from the Green Party who helped provide that very clear definition. The other amendment that I was very keen on was the deletion of clause 8. This originally was in the bill, and we spent a reasonable amount of time on this. It provided the council with protection from civil proceedings arising out of actions that it may have had, even with reasonable care. I think members really felt that this protection was not needed and that council employees should not be given greater protection than other local authority employees. I think that is a really important point, because the whole way through this bill our discussion was not only how do we ensure that we can get rid of this graffiti in a timely manner—I think it costs $300,000 to $500,000 without this legislation for the Hutt City Council to be able to get the required consents to be able to remove that graffiti—but also how do we protect basic private property rights? I think that we saw clause 8 as being unnecessary, because it did mean that local authority employees would have greater protections over other local authority employees.

I think the other main point that I would make is that, as I have said before, this legislation can do so much. Although we may have done some great things to tighten up some of the clauses, there is a need to recognise that some of the young people who are engaging in graffiti are doing that for various social reasons, so we on this side of the House are supporting programmes like Youth Guarantee to make sure that they are engaged in education and in work and are not necessarily out there vandalising people’s private property.

I am not going to spend too much longer, but I just want to say that I do commend the local member Trevor Mallard—I think I have said twice now—for bringing this bill to the House. I do want to say that I think all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have engaged in a very collaborative process to deliver what is a very important bill for the Hutt and its community, which involves making sure that our communities are safer and also protects some basic private property rights. I think that the member who spoke previously, Andrew Williams, is probably right. There will be communities around New Zealand that will be looking at this local bill and saying that they might be a little bit jealous. But I think overall it has been a very, very productive, worthwhile process, and I want to commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the member is taking just a 5-minute call, so I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : I am very pleased to take a short call on this bill, the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill. As a new member of this House, it was very encouraging being in the Local Government and Environment Committee and it having such a constructive, collaborative approach to the legislation. Like others, I congratulate the member Trevor Mallard on bringing in this bill.

The Hutt City Council operates a free service to remove graffiti within the Hutt, and it spends over $200,000 on this annually. The bill will mean that council staff or their designated contractor no longer need to get permission to go on to private land to remove graffiti that is visible from a public place. That is provided that the council has given 10 working days’ notice to the property owner or occupier that it is going to do this, and provided that it has received no objection from them. If there is an objection, the graffiti stays.

The council wanted this bill because of the high levels of tagging and graffiti in the Hutt and its experience that swift removal helps avoid further tagging, and helps prevent buildings from appearing neglected and then being targeted for more tagging. So it addresses the issue of absentee property owners, and building and property owners who did not respond to the council’s request for permission for its graffiti contractor to remove the tags or similar graffiti.

When I first read this bill as introduced, I was concerned that it potentially gave the council excessive powers to remove political comment and graffiti art. That was because the bill had no definition of graffiti and no protection for property owners who may have allowed their fence or their blank concrete wall to be decorated with a political slogan, with a political hoarding, or with some form of graffiti art. Of course, what may be one person’s graffiti might be someone else’s pungent political comment. The bill as introduced would have allowed an overzealous council officer or contractor to paint over whatever he or she considered to be graffiti. So it was pleasing that the select committee agreed to include the definition of graffiti from the Summary Offences Act. That Act requires, of course, that there be an element of damage or defacement and that the graffiti is done without the lawful authority or consent of the owner or occupier.

There have been suggestions that this bill be applied nationally. Certainly, the Green Party would obviously consider any such bill on its merits, but I have some concerns there. The Hutt City Council has been very progressive on the one hand when it has been controlling and eradicating graffiti; it has also been very progressive about channelling the energy that goes into tagging and graffiti into graffiti art. As long ago as 1999 the Dowse Art Museum ran a Style Crimes exhibition of graffiti art and a festival that involved break-dancing, music, and the painting of a huge mural. So the council has been working hard to be very constructive in terms of the way in which youth can express themselves through graffiti art in a positive way. It is important that that is done, because it is a validation and a valuing of youth culture. If we create legislation that eliminates any form of human and youth expression by labelling it “graffiti”, that is not validating youth culture. So what the council has done is progressive in doing that on the one hand, as well as removing graffiti.

Another very significant change by the select committee was, as the previous speaker Nikki Kaye noted, the deletion of clause 8, because it protected the council and its agents from civil proceedings. The advice to the committee was that it was unclear why council employees should be given this protection, when other local government staff carrying out their responsibilities under other statutes like the Local Government Act did not have a similar protection from legal action. So as long as council staff are taking reasonable care, they are very unlikely to be held to be negligent.

This is a very good bill. The Green Party is pleased to be supporting it, and I commend the member for introducing it and the work of the select committee. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) : I stand now to talk to the Hutt City Council (Graffiti Removal) Bill at its second reading. I spoke at the first reading as well. This is, indeed, a good piece of legislation, because it fills a gap in the law. I think we are all agreed, on this side of the House anyway, and in the Greens pretty much, and possibly even on the other side, that graffiti actually encourages even more criminal acts. This piece of legislation allows any graffiti that is visible from a public place be removed. Others have outlined the measures, including serving at least 10 days’ written notice to the owner or occupier of the land, which does serve to protect property rights in the sense that if the owner does want to be responsible and step forward, then that is also allowable. But the owners do need to clean it up. Graffiti does need to go. The zero tolerance that is shown by some councils is, I think, to be commended.

This could be a bill that we all watch very carefully. As many others have said before me—and, being the penultimate speaker in this, most of the points have been made and reaffirmed many times—I think it is very important that we can all learn from this, and I will be watching very carefully what the mayor does with this. I congratulate him and the team on having a very good tool to work with. Graffiti has been a very expensive problem for the Hutt Valley. For those of us who know it well, it is a place that has been plagued with it for some time. I think that this is the kind of measure and this is the kind of bill that will not only save you $300,000 to $500,000 a year in the Hutt Valley but also allow people to not gain encouragement from seeing this stuff up on the walls and up on the fences. It does create an air of neglect in a city, and it is something that really needs to be addressed. I think of the North Shore, certainly, in the Auckland area, where it is a problem from time to time.

We will be looking at this bill and seeing whether it might actually be able to be rolled out nationwide, and certainly used in other areas. It is, indeed, an effective new tool, and I commend the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, for marshalling it through in an orderly fashion. There was, indeed, a great deal of collaboration and cooperation between the parties. Holly Walker from the Greens had put together a good working definition. I think everyone made a valuable contribution, including, of course, the person who has sponsored this bill, the member for Hutt South, who is not someone whom I have ever had cause to congratulate on a positive contribution. He is far more usually associated with unpleasant and negative remarks in the House. This may be a one-off. The leopard may change his spots, or he may not. I would certainly raise the challenge to him that making a positive contribution in the House and being pleasant, and not shouting people down, might be something that he chooses to take up, because it has worked rather well in this instance.

I commend the bill. I commend the process of the bill. I think it has worked very well, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) : At the cut-off point I was pointing out that Governments around the world are buying up land to protect their national interests. We too should be protecting our national interests. It is not in New Zealand’s long-term strategic economic interests to approve large-scale purchases of our farmland to overseas buyers. Our land is the goose that lays the golden egg. We should sell golden eggs to the world, but we should not sell the goose to the world or our goose will be cooked.

This bill is about protecting family farmers in New Zealand. Small and medium sized New Zealand farmers are being priced out of the market by overseas buyers who purchase our farms. Overseas buyers looking to get a foothold in New Zealand can and do outbid local farmers. Shanghai Pengxin outbid Landcorp and Michael Fay’s group, in the process driving up the price of rural land, with the only beneficiaries being the Australian banks that had lent the Crafars the money. Those farmers who want to sell out love overseas buyers because they drive up the price, but the long-term effect is to drive out family farmers and replace them with overseas corporations. Those who care about the long-term future of family farming in New Zealand will support this bill. It is about keeping families on the land.

This bill is about cleaning up New Zealand’s shambolic and confusing system for approving overseas land sale applications. Currently the Overseas Investment Office is supposed to make a dispassionate assessment of whether applications by overseas persons to buy New Zealand land meet the tests set out in the Overseas Investment Act. In fact the Overseas Investment Office does no such thing. The Overseas Investment Office is a rubber stamp for approving the applications because that is what successive Governments have expected of it—nothing less.

As the High Court recently found in the judicial review of the Overseas Investment Office’s handling of the Crafar farms application, the Overseas Investment Office is not applying the law correctly. It is applying it in a way so that it can approve the applications. Figures released to the Green Party show that over the last few years the Overseas Investment Office has approved virtually all applications by foreign investors to buy sensitive land. But even so, it is a confusing system. This bill makes it crystal clear, with a clear guideline, that sensitive New Zealand land is for New Zealand citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand corporate entities.

Technically what this bill does is use the existing definition of “sensitive land” in the Overseas Investment Act and then ensures that such land cannot be purchased by those defined as “overseas persons” by the Overseas Investment Act. “Sensitive land” is defined as farmland over 5 hectares in area, or land greater than 0.4 hectares on an island, or land greater than 0.2 hectares on the foreshore, and some other specialist definitions. “Overseas person” is defined as someone who is not a New Zealand citizen or ordinary resident of New Zealand, and, for companies, the definition is a company incorporated overseas or which is more than 25 percent owned offshore.

Let us protect our strategic economic interests. Let us protect our family farmers. Let us clean up our overseas ownership rules. Let us keep ownership of the golden goose. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) : What a shocker of a bill! This Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill would have to be the most stupid bill that will be brought to this House during this Parliament. I just cannot believe that the Green Party members have the audacity to bring this here as a member’s bill. It is like something that they have cooked up over a joint out the back of the Green Party conference. It is “spliff-onomics”, “dak-onomics”—that is what it is, “dak-onomics”.

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the allegation that the Green Party is engaging in criminal activities.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The member needs to withdraw that comment. I call Jonathan Coleman.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am sorry, what am I meant to withdraw?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You made a derogatory comment and the Greens have taken exception. I ask you to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, we are moving on. Dr Jonathan Coleman has the floor.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is also a convention that there is an apology. If anybody knows about blowing smoke—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not necessary.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I would just like to see the Green Party members go out to their core constituency and tell them that they are opposed to the smoking of marijuana, because that would be really, really interesting.

What I can say is that—I will not call it anything derogatory—what we will call this is “yokel-nomics”. Basically, if this bill were to be passed, we would be going back to the yokel economy of 11th century Europe, where people pulled ploughs with oxen, they ran around with pitchforks, and they farmed little subsistence plots. For these guys, the Greens, to think that you could seriously go into an international forum and say that we are going to ban land sales to all foreigners is a joke.

What is really interesting about this is that this is a vision of what you would get if we ever had the misfortune to have a Labour-Green Government. You would have Russel Norman as Minister of Finance—and obviously this is his pet project—and he would be rushing this through. This would be part of his first 100 days: to ban land sales to all overseas interests, and to ban all sales of sensitive land. Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker would have to sit there in that Cabinet with these Green crazies and go along with this stuff, because if they did not, they would be out of Government. So this is the price that New Zealand is going to have to pay. It will be the Luddite vision of the Greens, and they know it, and they have been badly embarrassed over this.

I do not know where Russel Norman cooked this up. I have given you my thoughts on it, but I reckon he would have been thinking ever since this went into the members’ ballot: “You know, I really do hope that bill doesn’t come out, quite frankly. I really do.”, because actually it was a pretty damn stupid bill and he is going to regret having put it in there.

What has been interesting over this debate—and we had the snap debate very foolishly called by the Labour Party yesterday, and it got completely thrashed in that, because the actual fact is that it has changed its position on overseas investment so many times that it has been an embarrassment. Do not forget that Labour actually introduced in 2005 the Overseas Investment Act, which this bill today, which Labour is supporting, effectively repeals. So it is completely over a barrel on this.

Poor old David Parker. He is really taking one for the team today—big time. He signed off the sale of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of hectares of land. It is absolutely incredible. When he was the Minister for Land Information—it is absolutely incredible. But I can tell you he is going to be the next speaker and he is going to get up and tell you that Labour is backing this Green bill. [Interruption] They are. They are. Those members are backing it and they are going to be getting up and saying that they do not support the sale of land to any foreign interests at all. It is absolutely true. That is what he will be doing in a moment. He is going to have to get up and all the National speakers are going to look to David Parker’s record as Minister for Land Information, when he sold hundreds of thousands of hectares of land.

The Labour Government sold 665,000 hectares of land in its time, and 380,000 hectares in 2006—most of it signed off by David Parker. It got in this very difficult situation yesterday when Clayton Cosgrove, I believe, was saying that Labour’s position has evolved over time. It has continuously evolved. It has evolved in the last 24 hours. Yesterday those members were saying in that debate that they were in favour of the sale of some sensitive lands but they just were not in favour of the sale of the Crafar farms, but today it has evolved further. They are now not in favour of the sale of any sensitive land—

Hon John Banks: Xenophobic.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —yes, xenophobic—to any foreign interests. But that is what this bill is. This is blatant xenophobia. This is an embarrassment, a national embarrassment that Labour and the Greens are backing this bill in this House, and I really hope New Zealand First is going to see sense on this bill. I know those members have a different position to us, but actually they are sensible, practical people and they will see the madness of this absolutely ridiculous bill.

Look, Clayton Cosgrove does not agree with this bill. These guys are just laughing at it. They know that it is a joke. In actual fact, he is a sensible, centre-right man, Clayton Cosgrove. Actually, he is quite a cuddly little fellow, but, you know, he just hates this. He hates this stuff, eh? He is caught in such a terrible position, because he knows that if he wants to get back into Government he has to agree to rubbish like this.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I enjoy putting the sword into you, mate.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What is that—putting the sword into me? Well, if that is all you are living for. You see Clayton Cosgrove—look at the face of that man. That is the face of a man who truly hates himself. He does. He is torn apart with self-hatred. He has lost his seat, he is back here, he is in the purgatory of Opposition—

Hon John Banks: Did he lose his seat?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, badly. He lost it—he got the kick all right—to Kate Wilkinson. Absolutely. And now he is so desperate that the only leverage he can get in this Parliament is by putting bills in and out of the ballot and talking to people in the constituency who are not coming to see him as their electoral MP, and putting forward legislation of dubious benefit and then having to withdraw it. But that is another issue.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh! Shall we have a look at your return, or hers, or yours?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: You can look at my return any day of the week.

Back to David Parker. This is what David Parker signed off: Hancock Natural Resource Group Inc. He sold land to an American company in October 2006. David Parker sold 240,000 hectares of sensitive forestry land worth $1.5 billion to Americans, and in a moment he is going to get up and say that he agrees with this crazy Green bill. He also signed off to Ernslaw One Ltd, a Malaysian company, almost 14,000 hectares. That was in March 2008.

Hon Member: Was it sensitive?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It was $117 million of sensitive land. But I tell you what. We have got Raymond Huo over there. Raymond is a good guy, a sensible guy, and a good representative for the Chinese community. He has got to go back to his community over the weekend and explain why the Labour Party is supporting xenophobic, anti-Chinese legislation. I feel for Raymond, because he signed up to the wrong party there.

These guys here from the Green Party and the Labour Party are going to take us into a very difficult space internationally. They are going to take us into a space where New Zealand diplomats and politicians are not welcome in international fora because we will be the people, if this bill passes, who do not want foreign investment and who say that foreigners are unwelcome in New Zealand. I tell you what. The only losers from this legislation, if it were to pass—and, thankfully, it will not, but I will get on to that in a moment—would be the New Zealand people and the New Zealand economy. I can tell you what will happen if this goes through. There will be less capital coming into New Zealand. There will be less investment. There will be fewer people coming here to put capital into our economy, and the economy will not grow.

Russel Norman, the Australian who now does not want Australians to be able to buy land here, says that this bill is going to be defeated today by an evil coalition—an evil coalition. That is the National Party, United Future, and the ACT Party. Well, I have got to say that I am very proud to be part of this coalition, part of this Government, because we have got sensible economic growth policies that are actually seeing us get ahead. It is about looking outwards. It is about earning our income by trading with the world. You cannot trade with the world if you say: “Actually, you’re not welcome to come here and buy land.” We cannot go down the path of “yokel-nomics” that Russel “Green” Norman wants us to follow.

Russel Norman, this bill you are putting forward here is an embarrassment. There is no intellectual grunt or input that has gone into this. Russel Norman is a man who is better than this bill. He is brighter than this. He is severely misguided, an unreconstructed Marxist, but this is not his best work. He needs to get up and explain how the heck he came up with this, because he knows that this should never have seen the light of day. It is a big mistake and a political stunt. He is going to completely embarrass David Parker, who has to get up and explain that he now opposes land sales, having signed off hundreds of thousands of hectares of land sales to foreign interests. I just think this bill is a joke. It is actually a waste of parliamentary time. It should be dead and buried, and it is a very serious warning to the New Zealand public.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : Of course, the National Party’s economic plan for this country is to flog everything off. There is no more depth to it than that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s right. At any cost—at any cost.

Hon DAVID PARKER: At any cost. What is the biggest part of National’s agenda this term? Sell State-owned enterprises. Changing who owns what already exists does nothing to grow the output of your economy. It is true of asset sales, and it is also true of our rural land.

We heard a diatribe from the previous speaker, Jonathan Coleman, accusing the prior Labour Government of allowing the sale of rural land. Most of it was forest. The Minister was quite correct to say that. Most of it was, in fact, the resale of land owned by Carter Holt Harvey that had previously been sold into overseas ownership, moved back into New Zealand ownership for a day, and then onsold to new foreign investors. That is what those big hectares relate to. In any event, the lessons that New Zealand has learnt as a consequence of what happened through the sale of our forestry sector ought to be a salutary lesson as to why it is that we do not want to make the same mistake in respect of all of our other rural land.

There is no doubt that the sale of our forestry estate has meant that we have ended up processing fewer of our logs as a proportion of our total. There is no doubt about that, at all. If you want to see third-party commentators who have analysed that, have a look at what Brian Gaynor has written about how if you lose control of the ownership of some of these interests in land, you end up depriving New Zealand of the full value stream that flows from the use of those lands. There is no economic advantage to New Zealand from flogging off our dairy land. We know this from the analysis of the High Court when it overturned Minister Williamson’s initial decision to sell the Crafar farms. The court said that it was not convinced that the improvements to productivity, to production, that would happen under the purchaser, Shanghai Pengxin, would not have happened anyway under alternative purchasers. That is just common sense.

We know that we are very efficient farmers in New Zealand and that we increase farm output where it is economic to do so. That is why we are successful in these industries around the world. These are our primary industries. They are our premier industries. They are the way in which we keep control of Fonterra. Ownership of land is what leads to ownership of Fonterra. That has been diluted a little bit through the share trading bill that this House passed without the appropriate protections in respect of Fonterra recently, but, generally, landownership is what controls ownership of our cooperatives. Those cooperatives have been very successful at maintaining vertically integrated ownership of a decent share of the profits that can flow from the land.

We heard some assertion that this bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, is all some crazy economic vision being brought forward by the Greens and supported by the Labour Party. Well, do you know what happens in Japan? It has a very successful economy. Does it let foreigners buy its land?

Hon John Banks: Really? Really? A successful economy.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, it has a successful economy, Mr Banks. It would have a per capita income that is far higher than New Zealand’s. It runs a current account surplus year after year after year, unlike the New Zealand current account deficit, which has been four decades in length. It controls its sales of land. So does China. What about the land of the free? What about the United States of America? Why did you not mention it? Why was the land of the free, the United States of America, not mentioned? There are a number of states in the United States of America that stop foreigners purchasing their rural land. [Bell rung] One minute? Is this a 5-minute speech, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, it is.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh right. OK, I thought it was 10. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

There are problems with this bill. This bill is not perfect. It does go too far. It says that no sensitive land ought to be sold—that is, no rural land at all. We say that there are exceptions that need to be made. For example, if someone was bringing in intellectual property or was going to bring jobs that would not otherwise occur, then we are willing to look at that as a matter of ministerial discretion. That can be fixed at the select committee. We think that there are some revisions that are needed in respect of that, but it is better than the status quo. Those things can be fixed at the select committee, and those changes ought to be allowed to be made by this bill getting the vote at first reading.

If parties cannot evolve their positions as circumstances change, then democracy becomes moribund, and we might as well not have democracy. We might as well have dictatorship. It is appropriate that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) : The ACT Party opposes this xenophobic exercise in economic nationalism. That is what the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill is. It is a xenophobic exercise in economic nationalism. What a cheek—the Australian leader of the Green Party coming into this Parliament and wielding this xenophobic piece of legislation in the House. But at least he is smart enough to line up the Labour Party to go with him like one of the lemmings.

One of the great leaders of this country once said to me: “Some doctors make you well, and others make you sick.” Well, I can tell Dr Norman that if he wants investment growth and jobs in this country, then this proposition is sick. This bill is diametrically opposed to the best interests of this country. Members should know that when it comes to welcoming foreign investment in New Zealand, New Zealand is already an international laggard. Every few years the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development measures how open countries are to foreign investment, including investment in land. Members should get used to the idea. The same members might be surprised to hear that out of 55 countries measured, New Zealand is the sixth most restrictive country on foreign investment. What are foreign owners going to do with the land? What is a self-respecting Aussie who wants to come to this Parliament going to do when he buys his one-bedroom flat in Manukau Road in Epsom, in my electorate? He cannot take it back to Aussie when he has finished with his political career, come the next election. It stays here. It is an investment here. There are fewer restrictions on investing in Russia than there are here.

If we wish to prosper, we need foreign investment.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where is Dotcom from?

Hon JOHN BANKS: I can say to “Mini-Mike” that if we want to prosper—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Better that than “Mini-Rodney”.

Hon JOHN BANKS: The downmarket version of Mike Moore—that is whom we are hearing from—is yapping across the other side of the House. I want to hear him. I cannot understand the Labour Party members who want to be on this side of the House. The previous speaker, David Parker, was parachuted into the Epsom electorate, got 2,000 votes, and we have not seen him on Broadway in Newmarket ever since.

I want you to know that we know we need foreign investment, because up until approximately 1,000 years ago there was no foreign investment in New Zealand. There were no jobs either, 1,000 years ago. There was no foreign investment and no jobs. Foreign investment equals jobs, foreign investment equals productivity, foreign investment equals foreign exchange earnings, and foreign investment equals the fact that New Zealand is going to go ahead and be able to compete with the rest of the world.

Take this example, Labour Party people over there. James Cameron, listening on his crystal set in the Wairarapa tonight, will be appalled. The best film director in the world will soon live within an hour of this Parliament. He is bringing his capital, he is bringing his know-how, and he is going to bring many, many jobs to this country. But the Labour Party and the Australian leader of the Green Party do not want James Cameron here. The Australian leader of the Green Party does not want James Cameron here. With this legislation, if we pass it through here, James Cameron, the greatest film director in the world—one of the great ones—will not be welcome in this country. Only the Green Party would want to discourage that kind of investment—only the Green Party. Only an interloping Australian, leader of the Marxist Green Party in this Parliament, would want that kind of legislation foisted on the people.

This bill actually tells us quite a lot about the Green Party, does it not? It is a party of old dudes and young fogies—old dudes and young fogies. One of the older members, Steffan Browning, said that this bill is “totally timely”. That is what Steffan said—that it is totally timely. As modern as it sounds, this bill would be a step backwards, towards fortress New Zealand of old. This would be fortress New Zealand of old. People would be packing up their bags and fleeing to where that joker fled from—Australia, across the Tasman. Well, we say to the Australians, unlike the Australian leader of the Green Party in this Parliament, that if you want to come to New Zealand, invest in New Zealand, buy land in New Zealand, buy property in New Zealand, create jobs in New Zealand, and create wealth for New Zealand, then you are welcome.

This bill would be a disaster for this country. It would close down New Zealand when it needs to be opening up, and would leave the nasty aftertaste of Green xenophobia in our mouths. That is what it would do. It would leave a nasty aftertaste of Green xenophobia. I have not heard in the last 8 months what that party stands for in terms of investment growth, jobs, and creating wealth and foreign exchange earnings. [Interruption] Ah, the little yapper there. He has never had a real job in his life—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) : I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. I guess it will be of no surprise to most people listening to this, or watching this, or in this House that New Zealand First will support this bill because we do not support the sale of land to foreigners. We have consistently opposed the sale of land to overseas interests, and we will continue to do so. In fact, back in 1997 New Zealand First first brought in the initiative to drastically reduce the sales of land to foreigners each year. Just imagine—if that had been enacted all those years ago, then we would have a lot more land in New Zealand ownership today than is currently the case.

At the present time about 70 percent of our forestry is in foreign ownership. New Zealand First has always opposed the sale of land to foreigners, so this bill is very much in New Zealand First territory. However, New Zealand First is not opposed to foreign investment as long as such investment stands the test of being to New Zealand’s advantage. New Zealand First stands firm against asset sales to foreign interests.

New Zealand First’s foreign investment policy also includes the premise that such investment must be in the interests of all of New Zealand and New Zealanders. The private interests of foreign owners and shareholders are not our concern, but the public interest of New Zealanders is. We also are in favour of rewriting the foreign investment policy framework and operational requirements as they relate to the work of the Overseas Investment Office to protect the national interest—and that is where this bill comes in—in line with long-held New Zealand First policy.

When you look at the definition of sensitive land in the principal Act—and perhaps Government members need to have a look at it—it is interesting to see that it includes things such as islands apart from the North Island and South Island—and we are talking about many sensitive islands around New Zealand’s coasts—the bed of lakes, the land held for conservation purposes, the foreshore and seabed, and many other sensitive areas along those lines, including heritage sites, wāhi tapu sites, and the like. So when we are talking about sensitive land, it also means that foreign interests cannot buy some of our cherished heritage, some of our very, very sensitive conservation areas, or areas adjoining waterways or foreshore areas, which, again, could be perceived as being sensitive. So in this regard it is good.

I am a fifth-generation New Zealander. Both my mother’s and my father’s side of the family arrived in the 1840s. I am one who most certainly wants to see New Zealand land kept in the hands of New Zealanders and not sold off to foreigners. We do not want to become tenants in our own country. We do not want people coming to this country just to use it as a convenient place to have some sort of spot in the South Pacific that they can come to once or twice a year but who are in fact giving nothing to the economy.

I was aware of a number of instances where people were coming great distances to stay in holiday houses in New Zealand that they owned in very, very sensitive strategic locations while New Zealanders themselves could not access some of those same areas of New Zealand coastal land. It is a great shame when we get to that sort of a situation. We do not want to be in a situation in this country where good New Zealand Kiwis no longer have the same access to all of our sensitive areas of this country.

We certainly would hope that this will have a flow-on effect through the current asset sales petition that is going around New Zealand. We certainly hope that the likes of this is another feather in the cap, in that more and more New Zealanders will also sign that to ensure that there are not State asset sales per se going on under this Government, and that basically we are striving to keep New Zealand for New Zealanders. In that situation it is very much fitting that the New Zealand First Party stands for putting New Zealanders first, and in that respect we commend the member in charge of this bill, Dr Russel Norman, in terms of also wanting to ensure that New Zealanders are put first in terms of our sensitive land in our beautiful country. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. On behalf of migrants I would like to say that such a bill will be a disappointment for them. They bring a lot of investment, which in turn creates a lot of jobs. Such a bill will restrict them from bringing in their investment. I hope my good friend Raymond Huo will stand and join me in saying this on behalf of migrants.

This bill is designed to retain ownership and control of sensitive lands within New Zealand. It amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to prevent overseas persons from purchasing sensitive land. This critical bill also means that nobody can buy sensitive land unless they are a citizen or an ordinary resident, nor can any company that is 25 percent or more foreign-owned.

I call this bill critical for a number of reasons. Our colleagues on the opposite side of this House want New Zealand to enjoy a high standard of living, minimum wages to be raised, and to compete with Australia. However, these wonderful colleagues of ours who have all these bright theoretical ideas do not share their wisdom on where, as a country, we are going to fund these theoretical ideas from. Our colleagues suggest we raise the company tax at a time when our largest competitor and trading partner is contemplating lowering the tax rates. We do not need a supercomputing brain to calculate the impact of this decision on our economy, our businesses, and our jobs.

I also take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that most countries are facing the global financial crisis. This means that investors are looking for alternatives to the traditional economies of Europe and America to invest in. Therefore, I believe that this is our opportunity to benefit from the current situation that New Zealand and the world at large is in. This is also our opportunity to provide our people with more much-needed jobs and economic growth. This is definitely our opportunity to provide New Zealanders with the kinds of lifestyles they are entitled to.

As the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, said, we have been spending like First World countries, and it is high time that we start earning and building up an economy that belongs to the First World. Unless we take decisive action now, future generations stand to bear the burden of our inaction and our wrong decisions. This country needs overseas investment so that our businesses have access to much-needed capital. Access to capital means they can expand their operations, which, in turn, means they will employ more people. It will also mean that our businesses can look at not just national but international expansion of their operations. This will boost our exports, thereby improving our lifestyle and wages.

On one side we talk of New Zealand being an open and internationally competitive economy, and on the other hand we have Opposition members proposing that we turn New Zealand into a fortress where there is a limit on who can invest. This attitude of the Green Party will no doubt limit our incomes and lead to a depreciation in the quality of public services, and it will most certainly not lead to any job creation. I oppose this bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) : Mr Speaker—

Hon John Banks: Ah, “Mini-Mike”.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: John Archibald Banks, who interjected just before I stood up, called me “Mini-Mike”. I presume that refers to my good friend—a very close friend of mine—Mike Moore, who—

Kris Faafoi: The right honourable.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —the Rt Hon Mike Moore, who does have a good memory, unlike the Hon John Banks. I say this: if the insult from Mr Banks is that somehow I look up to Mr Moore, then that is true. Better that than being “Mini - Rodney Hide”, with the credibility in this Parliament of John Archibald Banks, whose credibility, we know, is in the toilet. I will not waste any more time on him. At least Mike Moore and other members in this Chamber can remember their own name, not just when it suits them, and can tell the truth.

Hon John Banks: I’m being savaged by a sheep.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, you would know. You would know, being a pork-barrel politician.

I want to address the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill. Labour will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We, and other parties in this House, have been accused of xenophobia. I will just say this on the Labour Party position: we have a bill in David Shearer’s name, actually, which restricts foreign investment in land where there is—and this is the bit that those members do not understand—no likely economic benefit to New Zealand, such as farmland, but would still allow investment where there are clear economic benefits. That is the Labour position. How can it be xenophobic to require foreign owners to add value to our economy? How can that be xenophobic?

What we say is that if you want to buy it, you have got to add some value. You have got to create some real jobs, not just employ one or two people to make it look good. You have got to add value, innovation, technology, and market access—add value to New Zealand. But simply just swapping ownership from domestic ownership to foreign ownership, with no value add, in critically important land assets in New Zealand simply does this: it transfers the revenue streams out from domestic owners to foreign owners. That benefits no one in New Zealand. So we say that where there are critical assets, where there is a clear economic benefit, then investment can take place. Investment can take place, but you have got to actually—

Hon John Banks: That’s not what the bill says.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am talking about our position, “Banksie”. I am talking about our position. But, you see, then we have the position of National over there, which is to sell everything, holus-bolus, whether or not they are State-owned assets, aided and abetted by Rumpelstiltskin in the corner there, who trots along, hanging on to the coat-tails of his National Party brethren, desperate to hang on in this place. He has no credibility and has done nothing—done nothing. The only bit of legislation that genius has put into this House is to repeal 31 Acts that do not exist. What an absolute genius! His credibility is in the political sewer—everybody knows it—but he is clinging to his National Party mates. That is what this is about.

This is about John Key and his pride. He will sell anything at any cost. We see that with the State-owned enterprises, with a tribunal hanging over him, with court action hanging over him, and with the worst possible economic environment in which to float a company and sell off a State-owned asset, yet John Key will do it. To hell with the taxpayers who have built those assets up for generations. He will do it, simply because his and the National Party’s pride is at stake. And the little snivelling one in the corner there, whose credibility is in the dunny, clings to his National Party mates, turns up to the trough, and will vote accordingly with National in order to preserve his own little future. He is a man who has “honourable” in front of his name, which for that member is now an oxymoron. We say that where there is an economic benefit to New Zealand, where foreign ownership can prove that it can add value, then that is the appropriate way to execute the sale of certain land.

We think this bill does need some changes. We will be promoting some changes, but we do believe that it is appropriate to support the bill’s referral to a select committee so there can be a proper examination of the issues before a select committee. And, by the way, it will allow us to show up the ineptitude, the policy gaffes, and the contradictions, once again, of the National Party when it comes to land of significance and when it comes to State-owned enterprises, because all it is willing to do, all it wants to do, is sell New Zealand out. John Banks has done that with the people of Epsom.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : I rise to speak on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. This is, essentially, a bill that makes sure that New Zealand farmland stays in New Zealand ownership. That is the nub of the bill. Fundamentally, what drives this issue—and it is not just an issue for New Zealand; it is a global issue—is that on a finite planet, food-producing land is becoming more and more valuable. That is the fundamental reality that sits behind this bill and the global debate about the global land-grab. So whether you read the New Scientist, where there has been a lot of debate around the global land-grab, or whether you read Oxfam reports, all over the world there is a debate about what to do about the fact that large sovereign States—particularly some of the Gulf States but elsewhere as well—as well as large corporations, are buying up large tracts of land. The reason they are buying up large tracts of land is around food security, fundamentally. South Korea is very concerned about food security, as are China and other food-importing countries, and the way they are trying to address that is by trying to buy up food-producing land.

The figures on this are hard to come by, because it is not very well regulated, but possibly 2 million square kilometres of land has been bought up in the global land-grab in the last decade. That is the equivalent of Spain, France, Britain, Italy, and Germany combined. It is a very, very large area. This global phenomenon of food-producing land becoming more valuable is being driven by a few things. The first, of course, is the growing population. The second is the growth of the middle class within those populations, who, obviously, are looking for more and more protein-rich foods, such as the dairy from New Zealand. It is also being driven by climate change. We are seeing real problems around food-producing land with uncertain and unstable weather, which has meant that there have been significant crop failures in various places. All of that has put enormous pressure on food prices. We have seen a big spike in food prices over the last few years, and that, of course, is being reflected in land prices. New Zealand is in the fortunate position of having access to quite a lot of food-producing land, with access to water. That land, over time, is becoming increasingly valuable, and they are not making any more of it.

So we need to have a debate about how we respond to those global pressures. One option, which is the Government option, is to have a free-for-all. If people want to buy land, then it will rubber-stamp the applications that come before it, as we have seen from the Overseas Investment Office. That seems to me to be a particularly stupid approach, and does not take account of what is happening internationally. I was hoping tonight that we would hear some reasons from the Government, but all we heard from Jonathan Coleman and Mr Banks, who are going to form—National and ACT together, and Peter Dunne—the majority that will probably defeat this bill, was an attack on me for being a migrant. I think it is extraordinary that the Government members got up in this House and accused the Green Party of xenophobia, and then attacked me personally for being a migrant in New Zealand. I would say to every migrant in New Zealand: “Do not listen to Jonathan Coleman. Do not listen to John Banks. You are welcome in this country.” Every migrant who comes here has a right to be in this country, every migrant in New Zealand has a right to buy land, and we in the Green Party believe it is important that migrants and all other New Zealanders are able to afford to buy land.

If land in New Zealand becomes part of a global market—an unregulated global market—the price of land will be driven up so that family farmers will be driven out of business. It will not be possible—it is not possible—for ordinary family farmers to compete with the likes of Shanghai Pengxin and other very large players, which are backed by sovereign States that are buying up land. There is no way to compete with the kind of money that they have available to buy land. So whether you are New Zealand - born and bred, a citizen here, or whether, like me, you have come here as a migrant—and I am proud to say I am a migrant, and I say to John Banks and Jonathan Coleman that you might attack migrants, but we are not going to listen to you—this bill is about making sure that everybody who makes New Zealand their home can afford to buy land here. Because if we have open slather from all of the international forces we will drive up the price of land out of the reach of ordinary residents and citizens in this country. That is fundamentally what this bill is all about—dealing with the international pressures to make sure that family farmers have a future in this country, and to make sure that ordinary citizens and residents can afford to buy land in New Zealand. That means keeping New Zealand farmland, in particular, for New Zealand citizens and residents and New Zealand - owned companies. Otherwise, that land, over time, will become more and more expensive.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : This bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, is enlightening. We have seen Mr Norman make a great effort to appear more reasonable and focused on the economy, and he has been sensitive to the charge that the Greens are merely watermelons—green on the outside and red in the middle. He is focused on the economy in all of his questions, he looks serious, and he evinces great concern about the economy. That is very good and I applaud it in many ways.

But this bill shows us the Greens’ true colours—its raging, unreconstructed, closed-economy piece of policy. It is anti-growth, it is based on fear—like most of what the Green Party is doing—feeding on fear that the world is about to implode and that all sorts of foreigners are going to come in and take our land. It is based on fear. It is about wrapping New Zealand up in a cocoon of protection and regulation, and I am against it.

The basic effect of this bill would be to stop virtually all foreign investment in land. Anything could be described as sensitive. This is a party that stood under the campaign slogan in 2011 that it was For a Richer New Zealand. Well, what a joke. You actually have to earn a living in this world, and by closing our borders and sealing the borders as this bill would do, we are not going to get very far.

It is a good job that Mr Norman and the Greens were not around in the 19th century, because nobody would have come to this country, the country would not have developed, it would not have happened, if you did not have the ability for people to come from overseas and buy property and invest in it. This country—this economy—has been built on men and women from distant lands coming and investing their money in businesses and in land in this country. Some remained overseas, and their capital built enterprises and developed the land, providing jobs for locals and improving the productivity of this country. That is how we grew as a country. More often than not, once they had made that investment, they decided eventually to settle here with their families, and that is how New Zealand made its progress.

So I am not surprised that the Greens have come up with a bill like this, but I am shocked, however, to see that the once-proud Labour Party is supporting this bill, as well. Mike Moore would be turning in—well, not his grave; he has not got there yet—his bed in Washington, DC, right at the moment, at the thought that his party, the Labour Party, which once stood for free markets and for being open and for free trade, has now given in to pusillanimous me-too-ism, following the Greens in this to the bottom.

Let us run through some of the arguments of why foreign investment is good for the economy. Small, high-productivity economies rely on international connections of people, of capital, of trade, and of ideas. All those things are linked. With the money come the people, the ideas, and the opportunity for trade. That is what foreign investment is all about. We do not have to be terrified of foreigners. Look at the wonderful things that people like Julian Robertson have done for New Zealand. They have come in, bought farms, invested in vineyards and golf courses, fallen in love with the country, and started donating great paintings to the art gallery, and there are many such stories. These are not people to be afeard of. Foreign investment greatly helps to add to the overall dynamism and diversity in a society, and it is not something we need to be afraid of.

Of course, the system proposed by this bill would—where it is talking vaguely about sensitive land—be so capricious and so hazardous that no one in their right mind would consider coming to New Zealand and investing in this land, in that environment. A second area, of course, is that a growing economy needs investment, and New Zealand has always needed capital since the start of European settlement. We have imported capital. We are a young, growing economy still. That is nothing to be ascared of. What we see here is a bill from a party that does not want growth, is anti-growth, and there is nothing to be commended in that.

It is worth remembering, too—sorry, I slipped off the step; I was getting carried away there—that foreign direct investment tends to lead to higher wages. Let me explain. I would just like to say that this bill has all the intellectual coherence of the speech that we heard from the leader of the Labour Party yesterday. I just want to quote the leader—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired. You should not have fallen off the perch.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : Mr Paul Goldsmith’s gesture just confirmed how important it is to strike a balance. To that end, and in that regard, Labour supports this bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, but we do have some concerns about its scope and focus. Therefore, Labour supports this bill being referred to a select committee because we are interested in hearing what the submitters may say about it.

Jami-Lee Ross: What does the Chinese community think of that?

RAYMOND HUO: The interjections from the National members are very interesting and very helpful. As Labour’s first member of Parliament of Chinese ethnicity it is very fitting for me to reiterate that it was under the Labour Government that, in 1972, New Zealand established a full diplomatic relationship with the People’s Republic of China. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and China.

In reply to Mr Jami-Lee Ross, it is very important for me to reiterate that it was under Labour that New Zealand apologised to the Chinese people in 2005 over the racially discriminatory legislation and poll tax. More relevant to this bill is that it was under a Labour Government that New Zealand signed the free-trade agreement with China in 2008, making it our second-largest trading partner. Our exports to China have increased to over 60 percent, with more money being injected into the New Zealand economy, which flows on to more jobs being created.

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

RAYMOND HUO: New Zealanders have widespread concerns about this issue, and these are valid. As a Kiwi-Chinese, I share these issues. I share these concerns, because we are not addressing these issues for ourselves now; we are addressing these issues for their future generations. It is all about striking a balance. Labour supports foreign investment, but we cannot afford to sell our future. To quote the Prime Minister, John Key, we cannot afford to become tenants in our own land. As I said—

Hon Maurice Williamson: You can’t be giving this speech.

RAYMOND HUO: Well, that Minister Maurice Williamson is laughing. I do not know whether he is laughing at my contribution, or laughing at his Prime Minister’s quote. I will quote it again: New Zealand cannot afford to become tenants in our own land.

As I said, however, we do have some concerns about the scope and the focus of Dr Russel Norman’s member’s bill, because, effectively, it prevents any foreign ownership of sensitive land. Labour’s own bill in that regard has taken a balanced approach. It limits the discretion of the portfolio Ministers to approve applications for the purchase of rural land. It would, therefore, significantly narrow the type of investment in rural land, and ensure that the economic benefits, job creation, and increases in our exports are the most important factors to be considered. It does not prevent all foreign investment in New Zealand, but it does recognise that buying land in New Zealand is a privilege.

I have just quoted what the Prime Minister said, that New Zealand could not afford to become tenants in our own land. In a similar vein, we cannot afford to lose control of our best income-producing assets. Talking about our best income-producing assets, a New Zealand Herald story by Adam Bennett says that the Government’s sell-off firms are top performers. A report by accounting firm Ernst and Young released just before Christmas last year confirmed that those State-owned energy companies that this National - ACT Government is so passionate about selling are generating returns well in excess of the Government’s cost of owning them, and out perform most similar private sector companies. It is a matter of striking a balance. If we fail to strike a balance, New Zealand is going to tumble down. Thank you.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : I rise to speak on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, which is about protecting New Zealand farmland for New Zealand residents and citizens. This is part of a broader debate that we need to have about foreign investment in New Zealand.

The Green Party is not opposed to foreign investment. We think, however, that before the New Zealand Government and people approve foreign investment, there should be some value-adding for New Zealand. There should be new capital, new networks, and new technology. There have to be some reasons to approve such foreign investment. Unfortunately, we have not been able to have the mature debate in this Parliament that we need. For example, from the National Party, Jonathan Coleman, and Maurice Williamson, we have just had abuse directed at me for being a migrant. That is National’s approach, and we see them sniggering over there. They abuse migrants, and they argue that migrants do not have a right to speak in New Zealand. I disagree with that, and I would say to Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman, and to John Banks, who also said this, that migrants have got a right to speak in this Parliament.

I say to migrants in New Zealand that the National Party, the ACT Party, Jonathan Coleman, Maurice Williamson, and John Banks abuse migrants, but the Green Party stands up for migrants and the rights of migrants to speak in this Parliament, and the rights of migrants to own land in New Zealand, because this is about New Zealand citizens and permanent residents being able to afford to buy land in New Zealand.

If we have unrestricted overseas buy up of land in New Zealand as part of the global land-grab, it will become unaffordable for ordinary New Zealanders, whether those New Zealanders were born here, or whether they are migrants like me. So if you are a migrant, do not listen to the abuse from Maurice Williamson, do not listen to the abuse from Jonathan Coleman, and do not listen to the abuse from John Banks. Actually stand up for your rights. Because you are a citizen in this country, you are a permanent resident in this country, and you have rights.

Under this Green Party bill, you have rights to own land. In fact, you will be able to afford land under this bill, because, as opposed to the National - ACT Government—the John Key - John Banks Government—we think that land should be affordable for all New Zealanders. That is the purpose of this bill, because those who understand what is happening with global capitalism at the moment will understand that there are these enormous capital flows, and there is enormous value being placed on food-producing land all over the world. There is what is called a global land-grab under way; a massive area of land has been bought, both by sovereign countries and by large corporations, because they value food-producing productive land. New Zealand land is a target for that global land-grab, and if we do not protect the golden goose—the golden goose that lays the golden eggs—then we have only ourselves to blame. New Zealand is a target if we are not smart enough to have the intelligent debate, which obviously the National Party is incapable of, to discuss how we engage with foreign investment, what kind of foreign investment is good for New Zealand, and what kind of foreign investment does not add anything to the New Zealand economy but simply becomes a drain on the New Zealand economy.

That is the kind of sophisticated discussion that we need to have as a country, as we engage as a small, open economy with the rest of the world. It is very difficult to have that conversation in this Parliament when, of course, the National Party and the ACT Party just flaunt abuse. But I am very thankful that my colleagues in the Labour Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and Mana are all supporting this bill through to the select committee stage, because I accept that not everybody thinks that this bill is perfect. But it is part of the debate we need to have in the select committee and elsewhere in New Zealand about what the right kinds of policy settings are so that we get the most from foreign investment but do not lose control of our country, and do not lose control of the profit streams that come out of land, as well as other kinds of assets in New Zealand, if they become overseas-owned.

We have seen problems in the banking sector and the telecommunications sector where overseas purchasers have simply bought up existing companies and have dominated those sectors, and they have become drains on the New Zealand economy, as those profits have travelled overseas. So it is very important that we protect key strategic parts of our economy, like our food-producing land, and make sure that those profits and the benefits from that land actually flow back to New Zealand. That is what this bill is all about.

This bill is likely to be defeated tonight on the vote of John Banks—that one person; that man who solicited and received donations, and then declared them as anonymous. It is John Banks, that one vote, that is likely to defeat this bill, and that is morally repugnant. This bill should go to the select committee. This bill has the support of New Zealanders. This bill is the bill that will actually keep New Zealand farmland under New Zealand control, and all New Zealanders support that, as a matter of fact.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I move, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider this bill.

The genesis of this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, occurred when I was in Opposition and was placed on the Justice and Electoral Committee. At the first meeting I attended the Law Commission, represented by the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, appeared before us for a financial review of its activities. The Hon Chris Finlayson, who had explained to me that he thought it important that membership of the Justice and Electoral Committee should not just be the preserve of those with legal training and practice experience, invited me to lead the queries to Sir Geoffrey. It was a great experience. One of the questions I asked Sir Geoffrey was: “How much of the commission’s revised work is taken up by parliamentarians and processed?”. In response, he said that very little was taken up, and he qualified it by saying that he understood that successive Governments had heavy legislative programmes and that it was not easy to fit revision bills into the programme.

In response I undertook to introduce a member’s bill, this particular one, which adopts many of the Law Commission’s recommendations to further improve the Habeas Corpus Act, which in itself was a member’s bill initially put in and passed through by the Hon Simon Power. It is a privilege to be following in his footsteps with this bill, particularly with regard to this writ.

The writ of habeas corpus is known as the “great writ”, for good reason. It requires that the applicant be brought before the court, and that the court examine the legality of detention, whether public or private, of that person—that is, the writ exists to protect personal freedom from unlawful detention. It is a fundamental guarantee of liberty that no one can be imprisoned or detained without lawful authority. It has been called by New Zealand courts “the most famous of all writs”, “the ancient and powerful prerogative remedy”, and “an ancient and specialised jurisdiction”. It is a very old piece of legislation, older indeed than Magna Carta.

In spite of this, or perhaps because of it—its importance as a foundation stone of a free and fair society—it has had a long history of being updated and improved as the ideal of freedom evolved and expanded. Even before the writ was brought to these shores, it had already been through changes, challenges, and great improvements and had continued to prove its importance. As the Rt Hon Lord Sir Alfred Denning noted in his work Freedom under the Law:“In 1627, when the executive Government cast Sir Thomas Darnel and four other knights into prison because they would not subscribe money for the King, the Court of the King’s Bench, to its disgrace, held that if a man were committed by command of the King he was not to be delivered by habeas corpus. Those were the … days when judges took their orders from the executive. But the people of England overthrew [that particular] Government which so assailed their liberties, and passed statutes which gave the writ its present power. Never thereafter have the judges taken their orders from anyone.”

The changes proposed in this bill are not quite as dramatic as was the case then. The situation today does not require such sweeping change, but they are important changes for the continuing relevance of the writ. It is important that we have a modern justice system to deal with modern times, technologies, and legal practices.

The writ was previously purely an instrument of the courts in common law, but it was codified in the Habeas Corpus Act. In 2007 the Law Commission reviewed the workings of that Act and the practices that surround it and recommended certain amendments in order to improve its operation. Among these recommendations were removing the priority rule, the extension of the 3-day rule, and summary dismissals of inappropriate applications.

By removing the priority rule—to explain each of those points—the High Court or a judge of that court will be given the ability to dispense, in appropriate cases, with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business. Currently that is the rule—habeas corpus must take precedence over all other business. The presumption will be, in this bill, that habeas corpus applications have precedence over other matters, but with the ability of a judge—a High Court judge—to relax that presumption if circumstances demand it. The Law Commission gave examples of a court needing to intervene to ensure that children receive lifesaving medical treatment, or an interim injunction to prevent publication of material that could endanger national security. The Law Commission was very clear that the requirement of priority and urgency for applications will remain. It said: “By amending the requirement for absolute precedence over all other court business it is not suggested that habeas corpus applications be dealt with in any other way than as a matter of priority and urgency.”

The second amendment, the extension of the 3-day rule, will state that although a 3-working-day time frame for hearing an application should remain the ordinary rule—the ordinary rule—the High Court or a judge of that court should be given the ability to dispense with this exacting requirement, again, in cases that are appropriate. Applications should always be treated urgently. But in complex cases it may be well be, and it is sometimes found, that parties actually require more than 3 days’ preparation to argue the case properly. Otherwise there is a risk of inadequate decision-making, or of judges issuing interim orders that have the effect of delaying a substantive decision longer than is necessary.

Andrew Little: It’s about freedom, not preparation. I thought you were the party of freedom.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: As the Law Commission has said: “An inadequate timeframe can operate to the disadvantage”—Mr Little—“of the applicant as much as it can to a respondent.” Again, this bill does not diminish the substantive rights and safeguards of the applicant during the process.

The bill will provide a new power to dismiss applications without the need for the defendant to establish the lawfulness of the detention where the application is statute barred under section 15(1) of the Act or involves the wrong procedure. The judge could indicate the procedure by means of which the application is appropriately brought. Sometimes it is clear on the face of an application for habeas corpus that the writ could not be issued, and this is one of the central problems that need to be addressed—for example, when the writ has already been refused by the court, or when a prisoner is serving an unexpired sentence. In that case, an immediate release is not a possibility, and yet the legal fraternity uses this as a device.

The Law Commission noted that some of these applications appear to have been brought by applicants who know that it is the incorrect procedure. I am sure that members in the House with legal practice experience will be able to elucidate on the way applications for habeas corpus can be used as a device to defer High Court activity, and for other reasons. Allowing judges to summarily dismiss such applications will save time and make our courts more efficient.

The bill also provides an express provision permitting pre-hearing conferences by telephone, video link, or other technology authorised by the rules of the court, so it brings it into modern communication practice. This will allow greater numbers of applications to be disposed of with more efficiency, especially for the summary cases I have just referred to, while still being consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

To conclude, this bill further clears courts of inappropriate stalling tactics, it allows judges to serve justice in a timely fashion, and it is part of this Government’s focus on promoting an effective, efficient, and fair justice system. This bill promotes a better justice system, and I hope it will garner the support of this House, as its intentions towards the great writ are noble and in keeping with the intentions of the writ itself. I thank the House for its time, and look forward to hearing discussion from my esteemed fellow members of Parliament on this bill. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : This bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, would implement word for word the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 30-page 2007 report Habeas Corpus: Refining the Procedure. Law Commission reports normally have great merit. This one does. Labour will therefore support this bill through all its readings and all its stages.

But I do want to say this: Law Commission reports should be progressed by the Government. The last Labour Government introduced procedures, in its third term of office, to ensure that Law Commission reports would be expedited. Those procedures have been abandoned by the present Government, and that is why so many Law Commission reports now sit on the list of unactioned items from that body. Instead of the Government of the day implementing Law Commission reports, we now see this tactic from the National Party backbench of using up members’ day time by putting up—

Hon Members: Oh!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: —Law Commission - recommended bills.

Hon Simon Bridges: This is cutting!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: This is not the purpose of members’ day. Although members opposite think that this is a joke, I know that those watching Parliament and listening to Parliament tonight will not be impressed by the fact that this tactic involves the Government of the day getting two bites of the cherry at Law Commission recommendations, and essentially stopping every other member of the House from using members’ day for what it was intended to do—to progress important matters of conscience or other issues that matter to them.

Well, the Government might decide that this is an appropriate use of the House’s time. I think it is disrespectful to Parliament, and to the Law Commission, which is entitled to have the time and the public money that it expends on its law reform work better credited.

Tim Macindoe: Do you remember the Parana Park bill? How long did you spend on that?

CHARLES CHAUVEL: It should be responded to by the Government of the day, by way of Government legislation.

Dr Cam Calder: Mr Chauvel, you shame yourself.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: The Government members of the Justice and Electoral Committee ought to listen carefully to this point. Rather than waste the time of that committee as well on protracted debate on a bill that has been extensively researched and is the subject of a 30-page report of the Law Commission, I am going to do now what I am going to suggest in the committee, and that is commend the Law Commission’s 30-page report to every member and suggest that we get on and not waste time debating this bill, but spend much more time on the important and genuine members’ business that remains on the Order Paper.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : It is a great pleasure to stand in support of this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. I do want to commend my friend and colleague Chris Auchinvole for his initiative in introducing it to the House, and I congratulate him on having it drawn from the ballot, because it is always a significant achievement for a member to be given the privilege of introducing a bill to the House through this means. I commend him for that.

I do want to acknowledge that Mr Chauvel has indicated that Labour will support the bill through all its stages. I am very pleased to hear that, and I thank him for that. But I also want to make the point to Mr Chauvel that far from being an abuse of the members’ bills process, this bill actually introduces a measure that was recommended to the House by the Law Commission. For 5 years it has sat unenacted, and for some of that time, of course, the Labour Government was in office. I want to say to him that there are a number of members of the public of New Zealand, including many in my electorate, who would much prefer this House to be spending its time discussing measures of this nature than some of the other bills that come forward. So it ill behoves the Labour Party to criticise members on this side of the House for bringing bills of their own nature forward, when many of their own bills are actually abhorrent to other members in the country. This is a House of many different shades of opinion, and it is a time and it is a place for us to be considering all the bills, not to be casting aspersions on the motives of some who bring a bill to the House.

As the member who has introduced the bill has told us, in 2007, following consultation with the judiciary and Government agencies, the Law Commission issued a report proposing tweaks to the procedure for habeas corpus applications. Just as was the case a fortnight ago, when we debated the first reading of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, in the name of my colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki, here again we are dealing with a specific recommendation from the Law Commission. It would be quite wrong, I believe, for us to be ignoring these recommendations. We owe it to the Law Commission, which plays such an important role for us, to give due weight to its recommendations.

As every law student learns early on in his or her tertiary training, habeas corpus is an ancient writ, requiring a person in State detention to be brought before a judge or court to determine whether their detention is lawful. That is absolutely fundamental to our legal system, and it would be quite wrong for us to understate that and to mock what is behind this bill. That is a very, very important constitutional procedure. In fact, habeas corpus is understood to date back as far as the 14th century, and how often do we get the opportunity in this House to debate measures of that constitutional significance in history? A key provision—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Quite recent.

TIM MACINDOE: Well, Mr Williamson, having been here since the 14th century, remembers plenty of them—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I wrote some of them!

TIM MACINDOE: As he says, he did write many of them. But most of us, not having the advantage of his advancing years, sadly, have not had that opportunity.

A key provision of this bill is for the High Court or a judge of the High Court to be able to dispense with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business. It is also to give judges more flexibility to dispense with the 3-working-day time frame for hearing a habeas corpus application where it would be appropriate for more preparation time. As my colleague has indicated, it is expected that if this bill passes its first reading tonight, it will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing. I look forward, if that happens, to hearing from the profession and members of the public, and to working on this bill. It does, in my view, fit very neatly with National’s commitment to the delivery of better public services in the justice sector.

I will simply close at this point by saying that I look forward to working on the bill. I look forward to hearing the submissions that we will receive on it. I again commend my colleague for promoting it. As I say, it was recommended more than 5 years ago by the Law Commission. This is sound and sensible legislation. If it is passed tonight, my select committee will give it the attention and the intelligent examination that it deserves.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) : As my colleague Charles Chauvel has noted, Labour will support this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, but we will support it because it needs examination. As other speakers have said, the holy writ—almost—of habeas corpus is very important. It goes back to the Magna Carta. Those were feudal days. The National Party will be familiar with them, because those are its underlying values, those are its underlying precepts—it understands feudalism. But what is important about—

Hon Maurice Williamson: This is how the EPMU used to work, in the feudal days.

ANDREW LITTLE: Everybody in the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union was delivered up on request, I can tell you that. It is a very important protection of liberty and freedom. On this side of the House we value it and we treasure it. This writ is not a matter of statute; it is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court—a court of inherent jurisdiction. It is not something that should be lightly interfered with. It is not appropriate, in my view, to justify changes to this important institution—the institution of the writ of habeas corpus—on the grounds of greater efficiency.

The Better Public Services mantra that we hear all the time might be good for the cost-cutters, the accountants, and the bean counters, but this is a question of individual liberty and individual freedom. Although we can do some things better procedurally when it comes to habeas corpus, when it comes to the oversight that the High Court has to preserve and protect freedom and protect citizens from unlawful detention, we should be very careful about the erosions of those principles—the priority principle—and the requirement for the body to be delivered up in an appropriate time frame. It is entirely appropriate that the court be given guidance that where clearly the detention is lawful, and the application is frivolous or otherwise not meritorious, there should be some scope to dismiss it without the Crown having to defend the detention.

I want to say that in my researches about recent applications for habeas corpus, the House might be interested to know that the most recent application in the Commonwealth jurisdiction was in the High Court of Bombay in the last day or so. It related to the delivery up of a cow, and of course that was in the context in which the bovine species is very important to them. Some chap had lost his cow, had his cow detained last November, and wanted it delivered up. The habeas corpus application was the only way he could think of to do it. The cow, sadly, had passed away some months ago and was not capable of being delivered up, except perhaps as a set of steaks.

I want to say this, though, which is very important: part of the examination of this legislation will coincide with the examination by another select committee of another piece of legislation that is a Government bill, and that is the Immigration Amendment Bill. That is a hideous piece of legislation. It is the total erosion of liberty and freedom. There could not be a greater erosion of it. It is interesting. Mr Auchinvole, the sponsor of this member’s bill, which purports to preserve and enhance habeas corpus, is a Government member presiding over a bill that will do precisely the opposite when it comes to the destitute persons who turn up on our border applying for refugee status, because that piece of legislation will do the opposite of habeas corpus. It will allow the Crown to detain unfortunate persons who turn up on our border for up to 6 months without having any say on any application to detain them, with limited scope for judicial review, and with limited scope for judicial oversight. So we should examine that legislation as against this member’s bill to preserve, protect, and advance habeas corpus.

I just hope that now, as these two bills move through the House, this House will look at these two pieces of legislation and will look askance at Mr Auchinvole, and at the members opposite, and ask how can it be that that party—the great party of freedom and enterprise, as it purports to be—will allow mass detention for up to 6 months without recourse to appeal and also then say that it supports habeas corpus. The two do not stand together.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : Kia ora koutou. The point has been made already that habeas corpus is one of those fundamental precepts of our constitutional system, of our rule of law. The Greens will be content to support this amendment to the core Act, the legislation. It is interesting that the 2001 Habeas Corpus Act is itself derived from a 1997 report of the Law Commission, which at that time saw fit to look at the existing situation, then found that it was not as good as it could be and sought to make it better. In 2007—some 10 or so years later—the then Minister of Justice invited the Law Commission to once again have a look at the operation of this legislation, and the result, of course, is the proposed amendment that we are debating, or beginning to debate, tonight. I think it is worth noting that that is an entirely appropriate process and it is useful to have that substantial piece of work already done, which should ease the task of the select committee.

I would have to echo Mr Chauvel’s comments about the appropriateness of how this is coming to the House, however. We know that, of course, every member of this House has every right to put a bill into the ballot and every day that the ballot is drawn there is an intake of breath as we hope we will be the lucky ones. I was interested to read McGee, and of course that reinforces the point that any member may put in a member’s bill, but the inference is clear that the expectation is that this is something, a tool, a mechanism, that the Government will use lightly. The question must be asked, why has this fairly pragmatic technical amendment to an existing Act not been included in some form of omnibus bill or included in another justice bill? It is a peculiar tactic, and it is interesting that a particular journalist some weeks ago was moved to speculate on, perhaps, the motivation behind these members’ bills we are seeing from the Government that are popping up. I do think Mr Chauvel might have traversed that territory very well and come to the right conclusion.

The principle behind habeas corpus in this particular bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, clearly is not put at any risk. I was interested to hear Mr Little’s remarks, but generally speaking the notion of habeas corpus—the right of a person to be brought before their accusers to be able to speak in defence of their actions, or whatever it might be—is fairly well protected. We ought never to take it for granted. We have seen the ongoing indefensible abuse of the principle of habeas corpus in the United States over many years in the ongoing stain on the American reputation that is Guantanamo Bay—the detention of people without trial, without access to legal information, and, in some cases, without even being properly identified. One hopes we never see a stain on New Zealand’s reputation, but I think it is an apt reminder that we ought never to take these things for granted, to continue to value these fundamentals of our legal system, and to be thoughtful about any amendments, any changes, we make to them.

As I say, I am sure this bill is coming from a very sound and a very straightforward foundation. I did note initially with a minor concern that there is a clause in this bill that enables the use of audiovisual technology. I am a person, I must say, who immediately hears a wee alarm bell going when we introduce technology into the practice and the execution of justice. In this instance, however, it is clear that the judge may initiate the use of an audiovisual link, for example, but I do note that the test that the judge must be convinced of is that it is in the interests of justice before he or she determines the use of such a technology. I think that is an interesting test. It is perhaps a useful conversation for the select committee to have, just to think through exactly what that would mean in the real world, in the application of this bill. So with those few comments I do reiterate that the Greens will be supporting this bill. We have our suspicions and questions about the mechanism used to bring it into the House, but that will not prevent us from supporting what we see as a useful piece of legislation.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : The right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, as we know, is a basic right under English law that has developed over centuries, and the English Act of 1679 is the most important historical Act of those. There is an interesting story attached to the passing of that Act. It had had difficulty in passing through the House of Lords and had gone to and fro between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. On the last occasion in the Lords, Lord Grey was one of the tellers. Seeing one very fat Lord going through the Ayes door, he counted him as 10 in jest.

Hon Member: No, no—oh!

DENIS O’ROURKE: He did. So the bill passed by 57 to 55, even though only 107 Lords were sitting at the time. So I just thought you would like to know how it arose.

But habeas corpus in New Zealand is under the Habeas Corpus Act of 2001, and section 7(2) of the 2001 Act will not, we think, be affected by this amendment, because it preserves “the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and make an order on an oral application at any time in circumstances of unusual urgency.” So we think the ancient law is preserved, and this amendment does not alter this. Also, it preserves no disqualification for lack of standing or capacity, it preserves no discovery of documents available, and it preserves no fee payable to file an application, and all those are quite important issues as well.

Section 9 of the 2001 Act is amended in three ways, fundamentally. Section 9(1), giving habeas corpus precedence over other court matters, is amended by adding the words “unless the court considers that the circumstances require otherwise”, and, secondly, in section 9(3), the existing requirement for the application to be heard within 3 days remains. But now that will be subject to the words: “Unless a Judge otherwise orders,”. We in New Zealand First think that is appropriate. It provides for some flexibility for the court, in appropriate cases, to allow for the efficient ordering of court business and prioritisation without compromising the need for prompt attention, ordinarily within the 3-day limitation, and it prevents abuse by applicants who ought to be using other procedures. Thirdly, the new section 9(4) requires that parties be given an opportunity to be heard, and that is very important, as well.

In clause 6, which inserts new section 10A(1)(a), a judge can extend the 3-day time limit for the “just and efficient determination of the application,”. The requirement for “just and efficient” should ensure a prompt hearing, even if it goes beyond the 3-day rule, so we see no problem there either.

Clause 7, which amends section 14A(1), says that even if a defendant has not proved the lawfulness of the detention, a judge can refuse to grant habeas corpus only if—two circumstances—firstly, section 15(1) applies, which prevents more than one application on substantially the same grounds, or, secondly, the habeas corpus procedure is not the appropriate one having regard to the applicant’s allegations. That seems appropriate, as well. It does not infringe the right of habeas corpus, really, at all, in any genuine application.

Finally, the amendments to sections 17(1) and 17(1A) allow the Supreme Court in appeal not to comply with the usual requirements for habeas corpus if the court decides that “circumstances require otherwise”, while otherwise giving precedence over all other court matters. That, again, we think is quite appropriate and allows some flexibility for the court to order its business efficiently.

New Zealand First does approve and support the bill as a whole. We think it is well drafted, is in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations, and continues to preserve the fundamental right for any person to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and to have that dealt with expeditiously, but with some flexibility for the court to reorder its priorities. So we will be voting for it. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : It is a huge pleasure to rise and take a very brief call on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. I appreciate the contributions from all sides of the House. I notice with great delight and pleasure that the whole House is supporting this bill, and I commend my colleague Chris Auchinvole for his eminently pragmatic bill. I must say that I do appreciate the contributions of Mr Charles Chauvel, both in the select committee and in the House, on matters legal, but I did find his comments today a trifle judgmental and churlish, especially with regard to the filibustering on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill that the other side was party to only a few short months ago in this very Chamber.

I was not a great Latin scholar. I did it only until fifth form, year 11. I did manage to get through School Certificate. I can still remember the first line in the Latin primer: “Supra est via Romana, via et lata et recta est.”—above is a Roman road, the road is broad and straight. I can still remember that. “Habeas corpus” means, I think, “you have the body”. I was wondering what Su’a William Sio and the Hon David Cunliffe were speaking about in the House during this debate. I wondered at the new, cleanly shaven, trim, tanned, and Olympic hopeful haircut on David Cunliffe, and I wondered whether my colleague from South Auckland was saying: “Habeas corpus. You have the body. You have the body to be a leader of our party. You have the body to be a leader of our party.” That was just a thought. I cannot confirm that. Of course, another David could say “Ecce Davidus, habeas corpus.”—alas, David, you have the body. But, then again, it has to be a living body, as we heard from a previous speaker when talking about a cow in Mumbai. It has to be a living body, so that may be a line call with some members of the Labour caucus.

Colleagues, habeas corpus is an ancient writ. It has been called a great writ, and, not being of the legal fraternity, I did look up Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which, of course, is the repository of all legal wisdom. I learnt that habeas corpus ad subjiciendum—habeas corpus ad subjiciendum—was actually a writ issued first in the reign of King Edward I in 1305. There have been other writs, as we have heard, preceding that, with a similar target, but the basis of the writ is that “the king is at all times intitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted.”—so, basically, to answer the question of whether that detention is lawful. The writ exists, basically, to ask that question and to protect, thereby, the personal liberty of a subject and a citizen. Then, as now, the writ of habeas corpus issued by a superior court is in the name of the sovereign and commands an addressee—perhaps a sheriff, a lower court, or a private subject—to produce the prisoner before a royal court of law.

We have heard an excellent summary from my colleague Tim Macindoe, the chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and also Mr Auchinvole outlining the history of how it came to pass that in 1997 the Law Commission decided that we needed to simplify procedures for dealing with habeas corpus in the New Zealand jurisdiction. This led to the Habeas Corpus Act of 2001, which implemented the changes of that report and formalised habeas corpus in legislation. There were, however, some anomalies, which have been pointed out by previous speakers. In 2007 the Law Commission, in consultation with the judiciary and Government agencies, came up with the report we are considering now. As Charles Chauvel so well pointed out, it forms the basis of this legislation. I do commend this bill to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) : Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is always a pleasure to follow Dr Cam Calder in this House. He is always entertaining, but rarely informative. This bill is in the name of Mr Chris Auchinvole, and I will congratulate him and commend him for the fact that he has had this bill pulled out of the ballot. It is a pleasure I have not had in my time in the House.

This bill has come about because there was a perception that the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications has been misused, where some applicants have used it to obtain priority on hearings that should have been dealt with by other means. It does come about from a Law Commission report in 2007 that my legally learned colleagues Andrew Little and Charles Chauvel have already talked about, and there are examples within that report. Because of the nature of its being a Law Commission report, as Charles Chauvel and Andrew Little have said, we will be supporting this bill through all its stages.

As Charles Chauvel pointed out in Labour’s first contribution on this bill, we do question why this law is navigating its way through this House as a member’s bill. We do believe it should be a Government bill. I did congratulate Mr Auchinvole on his luck in getting the bill pulled out of the ballot. We do think that it could have been given more priority and probably a little bit more seriousness if it had been a Government bill.

There were some comments made earlier by Tim Macindoe that our comments in regard to this bill and how it is navigating its way through this House were that we were ignoring the issue. We were not. We are not ignoring the issue. We absolutely fundamentally support the substance of this bill. As I say, we just question the manner in which the Government has brought it through this House. We also praise the initiative of Mr Auchinvole for submitting this as a member’s bill, but there is not so much initiative when you just highlight your name, then push Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V on a Law Commission bill that has been submitted.

We will be supporting this bill in the House, but, as has been mentioned earlier in our contributions, this is just a tactic by the Government to use up members’ time.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to take a short call on this bill tonight. It is an honour and a privilege to be speaking on such an important topic at the first reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. Obviously, my colleagues are very well read on Latin, and I cannot compete in any way whatsoever, apart from to say “Ad astra per aspera”, which are the four words that I know. They mean “To the stars through endeavour”, which was my school motto, so that is as good as I get, I have to say.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does it mean?

KATRINA SHANKS: What does it mean? To the stars through endeavour—very important. That is a girls’ school for you. [Interruption] It does indeed.

So I would just like to acknowledge my colleague Chris Auchinvole for the work that he has put into getting this bill to the ballot and drawn for its first reading today. I would also like to acknowledge the Law Commission for the work that it has put into the bill’s early stages to get it to the House today, and also the Justice and Electoral Committee, which is led by the fabulous Tim Macindoe and deputy chair Cam Calder, for the work that they are going to do when it gets to the select committee, of course. Obviously it will be a quick turn-round for this bill to get it back to the House for the second reading.

Habeas corpus is a pillar of the criminal justice system. It safeguards the liberty of New Zealand citizens. This relates to an application under the 2001 Act, which allows the validity of any arrest or detention to be tested. If it is found to be unlawful, the court may issue an order and that person is released. This reflects one of the most important ideas in a free and democratic society—that there is a general right to liberty unless there is a legal basis for that liberty to be removed. This idea is so important it is enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in recognition of the importance of this. This bill helps us to recognise and modernise the process under which the courts examine the wrongful detention of applications. These changes prevent the erosion of process through misuse and allow for technological advancements to be incorporated, facilitating the progression of applications through the courts. This bill does come in the light of the Law Commission’s report and the anomalies of how the original Act has been applied. I know that previous colleagues in the House have spoken to that in detail so I do not need to speak to that.

Obviously the history of habeas corpus is long and varied. It comes from way back in the 14th century, so it has a long history in our court judicial system through New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well. With its enactment there was a requirement that the applications take precedence over all other court business, and this was a reflection of its absolute importance. However, some applications, including from prisoners serving sentences, have been applying this inappropriately. Because of that, this bill has come about to ensure that the courts have a bit more flexibility, and it allows the justices of the High Court the freedom to dispense with the rule that the applications take precedence, in cases where the system is being abused. It provides them with the flexibility, and makes our court more modern. It also allows them to use more technology, but more technology in a safe way, ensuring that every application is inspected by a High Court judge as it should be. This bill allows for teleconferences or audiovisual links, and it will also allow for a number of applications to be disposed of in a very timely manner.

This is a Government whose priority is about better public services. This is just one more example of that, to ensure we have efficient and effective management of our justice system. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I do not wish to take up very much time of the House, primarily, because I tend to agree with the points that have been made earlier about the undesirability of producing these kinds of bills as members’ bills. There is no point in rehearsing the history of habeas corpus, which we have been treated to a few times already; I think we are all pretty much boned up on the Latin and the history. But suffice to say, as my colleague Dave Clendon did earlier, that the Green Party will support the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill because the bill is inherently a valid one and should be passed through.

But let us pass it through as fast as we can so that we do not unduly waste the time on members’ day. After all, “fides servandaest”—faith must be kept. And faith must be kept with the principle of the original purpose of members’ bills, which is that they offer members of Parliament on all sides of the House the opportunity to develop and advance in legislative form their personal vision of what needs to be written into the New Zealand legislation—personal vision. I just cannot thank Chris Auchinvole enough for the blood, sweat, and tears that he must have shed long into the night, burning the midnight oil, drafting this bill in the pristine way! I mean, here is the bill. Here is the bill. I read through this bill word—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Read it. Read this bill.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Well, I am tempted to, because I think it is the height of legislative artistry and we have it here. Then I looked and I chanced across a document here. I open it up. Lo, there is telepathy going on here, because here is a bill, and I can tell you now—and I do not know whether this comes as a surprise to our colleague—it is word for word.

Hon Maurice Williamson: So which one should we be voting for?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Well, we could substitute it and call it the “Geoff Palmer Bill”. But I think in deference to the effort and the initiative—I think it was Tim Macindoe who commended Mr Auchinvole for his initiative, and I think it was Mr Bridges who commended him for his exceptionally passionate approach to this bill—we should all pay a tribute to our colleague here for the sacrifice he has made in bringing this bill through on members’ day. I commend you to the House.

Could I ask Mr Auchinvole whether there is going to be any word that he might conceivably alter in this bill as it wends its tortuous passage through the committee—

Hon Simon Bridges: No. He chose each one carefully.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Indeed, I think that is quite, quite clear. For example, let me make a suggestion. Just for the sake of generating some enthusiasm for this bill as it goes through the committee, clause 5, “Section 9 amended (Urgency)”, inserts a new subclause (4): “A Judge may not make any order under subsection (3) without giving the parties to the proceeding an opportunity to be heard …”. Can I suggest that in deference to what we heard from Mr Andrew Little, our colleague, we could say “without giving the parties, human or bovine, to the proceeding the opportunity to be heard”. Is there going to be any word that will be changed in this respect? Ecce homo, ecce bovum. I leave it to Mr Auchinvole to give it thought with his colleagues, the learned gentlemen there, Mr Macindoe and Mr Williamson. He can discuss it and decide whether there is any change at all, and he will no doubt have the support of this House, whether it is cows—

Hon Maurice Williamson: That can’t be the only section you have a problem with.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: No, I know that with the experience that Mr Williamson has had, in his longevity in this House, he will be able to advise Mr Auchinvole whether there is any scope for improving this bill whatsoever, because I have to tell you in full admiration that I cannot find it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I am very grateful indeed for the support of all the parties that have spoken this evening. I note the concern expressed principally by those who are of an academic bent, but I would like to just refer back to my opening speech, where I think I said I gave an undertaking to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that I would do this, and I am fulfilling that obligation. So I do not—

Hon Simon Bridges: With you and him in the room it wouldn’t be a short conversation.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, it was a tremendous occasion and, well, I could talk about that later on, if you wish. But I do not resile from the appropriateness of bringing this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill before the House on members’ day.

I do not resile from using the good offices of the Law Commission in doing the preparation. Not everything it does is perfect. Not everything it does has an untrammelled passage through this House. I think, in this case, it is a honey of a little bill. I have been to Runnymede, I have involved myself in reading the history, and I think it is a very appropriate bill to bring forward, because it will work and it is of interest to the common people. It would be of interest to me, on a technical point, having listened to Charles Chauvel saying that they made provision to process revised bills—I would like to know how many they actually processed.

Darien Fenton: Who’s “they”?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He did not say, and declined to say. It would be interesting, though.

I was grateful to Andrew Little for his contribution. I respect his legal experience and his acknowledgment that practices that use habeas corpus as a device for delay or devious purposes need to be addressed. This bill—joke about it if you will—has a serious aspect to it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, it’s a honey of a little bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is.

The contributions from all the parties have shown, I think—including the last one, which I enjoyed—that we as a Parliament take serious matters seriously, all jokes aside. All parties have given careful consideration to this bill before giving their consent for the bill to go further. To all, thank you; to those who have spoken, thank you; and to members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will handle this bill if its first reading is passed, I am sure that you can be entrusted to handle it with an efficient, effective, and careful level of consideration. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I move, That the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Hon Simon Bridges: This is a honey of a little member.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. Thank you to the member who has just interjected. This is a honey of a bill. In fact, it is a very, very exciting night for this member in the House, because it is a totally new experience for me as a member of Parliament. Never in my many years—not as long as Maurice Williamson and a few others—of being in this House have I had a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. So you can imagine the excitement I felt—

Hon Maurice Williamson: The ecstasy.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —the ecstasy—when this bill was drawn out of the ballot. I have introduced Ministers’ bills, very good ones and not so good ones. I have voted for many other people’s bills, and have been very, very proud to do so. But this is the first opportunity I have had to have a member’s bill in my name. You know, this whole member’s bill opportunity is very, very addictive, because there are many, many more bills to come from this side of the House. We are very excited about being able to make a difference in New Zealand by being able to introduce bills that people are keen on. Of course, what we have managed to do is to shame the National Party into lodging something like 14 members’ bills over the last 2 weeks.

But I want to start with this bill, and thank the writer and author of the bill, who did the work for me, Charles Chauvel. He is an asset to any party in Parliament. He has the ability to write legislation for us in a very short time, and he does most of the law drafting for us on this side of the House. We do not have a bevy of law drafters to do the work for us, unlike Mr Auchinvole, with his Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. Of course, when the Law Commission provides a report it also writes the entire bill and hands it over to the Government of the day, and Mr Auchinvole was very lucky that all he had to do was pick it up and table it. Well, in this case Charles Chauvel was the author of this bill.

I want to thank my colleagues, who have supported me in this bill. I want to thank the members of the Māori Party, who have said they support this bill, and New Zealand First members, who have given me an assurance that they are supporting it. In fact, they have a similar bill in the ballot, and they are looking to move a Supplementary Order Paper should it get to the select committee stage and back into this House. The Green Party has also indicated support for it. I am unsure as to where the National Party sits on this bill. I am also very pleased with the community, who brought this issue to politicians’ attention.

This bill is aimed at helping local government, not hindering it. It is aimed at providing an evidence-based approach to setting remuneration for chief executive officers of local government. It is aimed at providing a transparent accountability mechanism, which will ensure that it is very open to the public as to what is happening when it comes to the setting of pay, conditions, and remuneration. And it gives the ratepayers some confidence that there has been put in place a process where an independent rigour has been applied to salaries and conditions, and it is able to be compared with others in a similar situation. I also think it provides protection for elected councillors from public criticism.

Where did it all start? Well, it started in December 2011 following the devastating earthquakes in Christchurch. The Christchurch City Council, through a very small committee of councillors, including the mayor, set the remuneration for their chief executive officer at an additional $68,000 a year—an increase in salary of 14 percent that took his pay to $538,529. Many councillors had no knowledge of how and why this figure was reached. It was done secretly, and it was considered by many local people to be an obscene increase in the chief executive officer’s salary. Consider the conditions that people in Christchurch faced in December 2011. They were still without their homes. They had lost their jobs. They had lost family. Some of them still had no water and no sewerage. They were working long hours. Some of them had no pay and had hard work. And they had all the pressures that that community has had on them. They could see no justification for a pay increase that was 1½ times more than the average salary at that time. And it was not helped by the chief executive officer taking an overseas holiday during the earthquake, spending time during work time at the golf course, and then going out and adopting a very public and arrogant justification towards the pay increase that he got. For some it was the last straw.

But Christchurch was not alone in this respect. There has been disquiet in many local government areas about the remuneration of chief executive officers and how it is set. We had the case in Kāpiti of a pay increase of $44,000. Although I understand there were different circumstances, there was still not the transparency and openness that ratepayers have been expecting. You see different approaches taken by different councils when it comes to setting chief executive officer remuneration, pay, and conditions. Some have small committees that are done in private, some have full councils, and some pay their chief executive officers right up to the top of the market in the private sector, which is what some of the complaints have been about. Others pay under that. There is no consistency.

So what is this bill about? This bill is aimed at ensuring, from a hit-and-miss affair that we have now, that there is a uniform approach and transparency, which are absent now. What I want you to do is to compare what happens with the public sector, and how we set remuneration, terms and conditions, and appointments in the public sector. To begin with, Cabinet does not appoint a small group of Ministers to sit around and interview chief executive officers, performance review them, and set remuneration. It is actually done at arm’s length, because under the State Sector Act 1988 the conditions of employment of chief executive officers are determined in each case by agreement between the State Services Commissioner and the chief executive in the first instance. But the commissioner then obtains the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State Services before finalising the conditions of employment with the chief executive. The process is tried and true, is based on experience, and is appropriately moderated between other chief executive officers, looking at what their responsibilities are, the size of the job, and other benchmarks. It provides the appropriate evidence as to why a chief executive has received the level of remuneration.

Well, this bill amends the Local Government Act to add a requirement that terms and conditions, including remuneration of a chief executive of a local authority, must be approved in advance by the State Services Commissioner. At the outset, the condition of employment will be determined between the local authority and the chief executive. That can be done in whatever way the local authority decides, but before it is finalised, announced, and decided, the territorial local authority must obtain written consent of the State Services Commissioner to any such agreement or any variation of that agreement. There would then be a requirement on the State Services Commissioner to ensure that the remuneration is comparable to that in a similar job size, and so on. I think it gives a very clear and transparent path, using the expertise that is available in the State Services Commission, and, having been a Minister of State Services, I understand the work that they do and the very high quality of that work in assisting a Government in setting remuneration, pay, and conditions. I think it would be a very good tool for local government to be able to use, and when the comparisons are done by the State Services Commissioner they can then say: “We know the Rangitīkei District Council is paying this amount because it is comparable to a similar job size. It is not way up above the level it ought to be. It is not set against unknown benchmarks. It is done in a proper, transparent, open, and fair way.” I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : This bill, the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, which imposes on local government the strictures of the State Services Commissioner, is a desperate attempt by the Labour Opposition to play catch-up on the necessary reform that needs to take place within local government. You see, there is quite deep concern across New Zealand about the cost of rates and about the huge increases that have occurred over the last decade, and the people of New Zealand are looking for a Government that will show leadership around addressing that issue.

In March this year the Government announced a comprehensive package of reform to deal with the challenges within local government. Labour, which has been opposed to those reforms, has suddenly woken up to the fact that it is on the wrong side of the public argument, has desperately pulled this bill out of a drawer, and is trying to get into the public discussion around costs within local government. But the first challenge for members opposite is that they need to be accountable for their record in Government around the increase in rates caused by their reforms.

You see, in 2002 Labour put in place the biggest changes in many decades to local government laws. Labour rewrote the Local Government Act, it rewrote the Rating Powers Act, and it rewrote the Local Electoral Act. Members now on this side of the House said then that that was going to be a very costly reform. We warned Labour not to embark down that path. Members opposite, members of the Labour Government of the time, assured New Zealanders that there would be no spike or increase in rates arising from those reforms. Exactly the opposite occurred.

What we saw after 2002—and it is a matter of record by Statistics New Zealand—was that rates increased faster than any of the other 186 components that make up the Consumers Price Index. They have gone up by a compound rate across New Zealand of 7 percent for every year since 2002. That 7 percent increase means that New Zealanders today, in this time of economic difficulty, are really struggling to pay their rates bills, and change is required.

If we look at the rates increases that occurred in the decade prior to Labour’s reforms, we see that they averaged just 3 percent. I want to draw to the attention of the House the advice from the Department of Internal Affairs that if rates rises over the last decade had been what they were in the previous decade, the average Kiwi household would be paying $500 a year less in rates and we as a country would be paying a billion dollars a year less in rates. So I challenge Labour and say that its legacy of local government changes has been a hugely expensive burden for households, for businesses, and for farmers, and change was required.

The Government announced in March a comprehensive package of reform to refocus the purpose of local government on to the infrastructure, the local public services, and the regulatory functions that can be done only by our councils. Equally so, we have strengthened the governance powers of what councils can do, including, very significantly, a requirement for councils to disclose not just the salaries of their chief executive officers but the salaries of all their staff in their annual reports. That package of change changes the Local Government Act 2002 and actually gives the power to our elected representatives, our mayors and councils, to not just have a say in the salary of their chief executive but actually to set down a remuneration policy for all of the 23,000 staff who work across New Zealand’s nearly 70 councils. That same package of reforms makes it easier for councils to be able to reorganise. It sets down improvements in the fiscal responsibility requirements of councils and is a far more comprehensive package of reform than this lightweight, teeny-weeny little change that Labour has put on the agenda of the House this evening.

There are a number of significant flaws in this bill. The first is that the member Annette King, who sponsored it, has said that it increases the openness and the transparency of the appointment of chief executives. It does no such thing. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that requires anything other than the State Services Commissioner to approve a contract between a council and a chief executive. The member would well know, as an ex - Minister of State Services, how much transparency is there. Does that involve disclosure? In terms of when the Government appoints chief executive officers, it makes not a dime of difference.

If those members were interested in transparency in the salaries of chief executives, they would have voted for National’s reform bill that very specifically requires disclosure of not just the salaries of the chief executive but also the bands, as is required of public entities all the way through. It is a matter of record that Labour voted against that bill, which provides for that increased level of transparency.

This is the real fraud with this bill. There are 23,000 employees of local government. Annette King somehow pretends that by making a change in the salaries or in the way in which the contracts are drafted for just 68 of those 23,000 staff, somehow it is going to make a difference to ma and pa’s rates. We know that is not true. That is not real, Annette, and the member knows it. It is, as we have said, a flaky bill that is not dealing with the substance of the issues that face local government.

It also is rather rich, because I checked on the speeches from Labour members when National introduced its local government reforms. They had the audacity to say to this Parliament that National was treading all over the rights of councils. Well, that is a bit odd. I would say one of the most important decisions that a council makes is who it appoints as its chief executive and what it pays them—what is in the contract. Everybody who is practically involved in governance knows that the appointment of your chief executive is one of the most important decisions, and now Labour is saying that a council cannot appoint a chief executive without getting the tick-off of central government. If that is not a nanny State approach to councils, I really do not know what is.

I have a challenge for the Labour members who are interjecting. Why would you impose a tighter control on councils appointing their chief executive than the vast bulk of State entities for which this House is responsible? What is the logic behind that? Why would you have the process by which a school board appoints its chief executive officer or a district health board appoints its chief executive officer—the controls that are imposed in this bill go significantly beyond that, and that has no rhyme nor reason.

You see, the member says this bill arose out of the issue in Christchurch over the appointment of its chief executive. The interesting thing is that when we appointed a Crown observer, Labour criticised that. But it is interesting to know—and it shows how slow Labour is—that Annette forgot to mention that, actually, the chief executive of Christchurch City Council has not taken that $68,000 pay increase. This shows just how much behind the pace Labour is in terms of addressing the issues that are of concern to New Zealanders.

If we are to make local government more efficient, if we are to make local government more fiscally responsible, and if we are to make it more transparent and accountable, then members of the public need to look to the sensible eight-point plan of reform that National has set down and is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. What we do not need are these small, flaky bills that pretend they are dealing with an issue. This bill really is about Labour playing catch-up. It has suddenly realised that it has made a hash of local government and that it has caught itself on the side of big rates and big cost increases, and, in a desperate attempt to play catch-up, it has introduced this puny bill, which does not deserve the serious attention of the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : So speaks the former “Minister for Manufactured Crises”, Nick Smith. So speaks the former Minister not for local government but against local government. I congratulate my colleague Annette King on bringing this bill, the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, to the House. It is a matter that impugns all of local government, and it does not need that when it has an enemy in the current National Government. And it has a very real enemy in the current National Government.

Let us not forget that the former Minister who just took his seat was the one who manufactured a crisis in ACC so that he could push through reforms that he knew were deeply unpopular and that would undermine our world-leading scheme. He then went on to try to do exactly the same thing with local government, with figures that were so dodgy that they were taken down off the Government website not long after they were put up. The reforms that he has lauded here in the House today were all based on figures that were so shoddy they had to be removed from a Government website—so shoddy.

Local government debt is at prudent levels. In fact, it was not that long ago that local government was being accused of having lazy balance sheets and of not borrowing enough to fund infrastructure. It was not that long ago that that was a criticism of local government. The good thing about the 2002 Local Government Act was that it required long-term planning. This is one of the areas where local government had gotten into trouble. Instead of looking for a long-term plan for its infrastructure needs, and spreading that cost out over a period of time so that massive rates increases would not be required, local government was not doing that. So we did see some big rate increases to pay for core infrastructure.

Everything this National Government does now continues to undermine that position of local government. Let us look at the issue of local roads, for example, and the cost to local government of them. Well, our provincial councils have lost huge amounts of support and assistance from central government, because it is all being sucked out to pay for the roads of national significance. How does that help those provincial councils? They are now facing rate increases not because of the Local Government Act 2002 and not because of the former Labour Government, but because this Government is making decisions to suck money away from them, to stop assisting them. That is what is causing rates increases in a number of the provincial councils, Dr Smith.

The Local Government Act 2002 did a very important thing: it allowed mayors and councillors to decide what was really important to their communities, what was really going to be the game-changer, and what was really going to assist their communities to grow economically, environmentally, culturally, and socially. The mayors have taken that job on with two hands and relished it. They have led charges against youth unemployment. In Kawerau they have led charges against youth suicide. They have led charges for economic development. Local government is not just about potholes, rubbish, and waste water; local government is about communities. That is why Labour does not support the approach of the current National Government, which wants to take those abilities and those powers away from local government, based on figures that are so dodgy that the Government itself had to pull them from the website.

I hope that the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, will attend all the submissions, so that the local mayors can actually say direct to his face, in a way that they have not been able to before, what his reforms are going to do to local government in this country. They are retrograde, they will take communities backwards, and no amount of dodgy figures, made-up reasons, and manufactured crises change the fact that those reforms are going to be very, very damaging for local government. And what is damaging for local government is damaging for the country.

So I welcome this piece of legislation from the Hon Annette King. It provides a process for local government that is welcome. It provides some kind of comparison between like jobs, which I would have thought would be welcomed. The Local Government and Environment Committee is about to hear submissions on the Government bill. This would seem to me to be a good time to send Annette King’s bill to select committee alongside that local government bill, so that we can consider the two together.

The issue of remuneration of chief executives is important, but how very telling that Nick Smith said that that is the most important thing local government does. He said that the most important thing local government does is set the chief executive’s salary. That is not the most important thing local government does.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The appointment of the chief executive.

MOANA MACKEY: It is important, but the appointment of the chief executive, in my mind, and from what I see local mayors in my community doing, is not the most important thing they do. They are community leaders. They are the face of that community when something goes wrong, when we have a civil defence emergency, when there is some kind of social issue, and when there is an economic issue. They are the ones who front on behalf of their community. To say that the most important thing local government does is to set the chief executive’s salary shows just how much contempt the National Party has for local government. Nick Smith can roll his eyes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I seek leave to table the figures in the first version of the Department of Internal Affairs’ Better Local Government, only for them to be removed a few days later. I then seek leave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a public document?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. I tell you what: it has been removed, so it ain’t public.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: This is a public document.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, it is not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! There is a point of order being heard.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, it is not available, because it was on the website and then removed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I will put leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I seek leave to table version two of the Department of Internal Affairs’ Better Local Government, which has got the figures removed from it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is that—[Interruption] Hang on.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, it is available.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we are not putting leave on something that is available.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I seek leave to table a letter from the current Minister of Local Government to me, saying that he will not release the corrected—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon ANNETTE KING: You need to know what it is about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. You have told me; it is a letter from the current Minister of—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a long-established Standing Order that you cannot seek leave for the same document twice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, this is not the same document; this is a letter. She is asking for leave—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we misunderstood each other. On a previous occasion, the same member sought leave—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have already ruled on that, and that is the end of the matter. Leave is now sought to table—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I object.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I have not put it yet. Leave is now sought for—[Interruption] You cannot say that. Leave is sought to table this letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the Department of Internal Affairs’ official advice showing that in the 10 years after Labour’s local government reforms—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a public document?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is advice provided—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are asking; he is speaking. Is this a public document?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is individual advice, so it is not a document that has been openly on a website.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is it in the public domain?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Like any document that has been provided as departmental advice, it can be obtained under the Official Information Act—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we are not going to table that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If it is on the website, then it is in the public domain. [Interruption] Hang on. I will need clarification. [Interruption] I am dealing with a point over here. I will ask the member whether this is on the website.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is not on the website, so I will put leave for this purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just briefly seek your advice. I am not challenging the fact that leave has been declined for a series of documents—that is the House’s right and privilege—but where a member has constantly made statements around figures, for instance, being untrue, as that member has repeatedly, and then he denies leave for the figures to be tabled, what are the remedies—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. We have put leave—[Interruption] Order! We have put leave for these purposes. It has been declined. We are moving on. I am calling Nicky Wagner.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : I rise to take a call on this Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill. I understand that there are some concerns about the level of salaries of council chief executive officers, because, coming from Christchurch, I am particularly familiar with the argument. There has been considerable angst about the salary of the Christchurch City Council chief executive officer, increases in that salary—particularly because they were made during particularly difficult times in our city—and how the back payment should be made. But, generally speaking, councils manage the employment and remuneration of their chief executive officers with good judgment, they seek remuneration advice, and, except for a couple of high-profile situations, generally it is under good control.

Of course the National Government is extremely interested in the costs of local government. We are appalled by the rates increases that have happened in New Zealand to ratepayers since 2002 and the change legislation. We want our councils to be more efficient, more responsive, and better focused. Ratepayers need to be confident that their councils are spending their money wisely, that they are operating in a cost-effective manner, and that they are delivering the services that they need and want. As has been discussed in the House, we are working hard on reforms that will provide that stronger governance, more responsible financial management, and improved efficiency.

We agree with Annette King that ratepayers would like a more transparent process of managing the chief executive officer’s appointment—both their employment and remuneration policies. Under the new legislation that is going through the House at the moment, councillors will be empowered to set these policies and to put explicit limits on staff numbers. This is not just about the chief executive officer; this is about all the staff who are employed by councils across the country. We will also require increased disclosure in the annual reports of the numbers of staff who are employed, and their salary bands. We believe it will be that disclosure—those open-to-the-public information requirements—that will keep costs in check. So although the National Government is concerned about the costs, and the chief executive officers’ remuneration is a significant expense, we think it is something that locally elected councillors can and should manage.

This bill requires that the State Services Commissioner should approve the terms and conditions of remunerations. We do not believe that this is the role of central government. We trust local decision-making for local communities. It is particularly important that decision makers in this process are accountable to their ratepayers. Certainly, the State Services Commissioner would not face that accountability. Councillors would be very unwise to make flamboyant decisions in this case, because they tend to be voted out. It will be interesting to see what happens to councillors in the long term. In summary, we support local democracy and decision making as close as possible to the communities that pay, so we cannot support this bill.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green) : I am puzzled. The previous speaker, the member for Christchurch Central, said “We trust local decision-making and we trust local democracy”. Yet this Government, with its programme of sweeping change in local government, is taking a stab at the heart of local democracy, as one mayor said to me today. Its proposals to deny local electors a vote when there are proposals for amalgamation is substantially reducing local democracy. Its proposals in the changes to allow Ministers to interfere much more in appointing Crown observers, review panels, and managers is, again, not trusting local democracy. So why, if we have the Minister-in-exile saying that one of the most important things that a council does is to appoint the chief executive, is the Government not trusting local councils to do the other, much more important things, we think, which is provide the services and facilities that communities value?

The Green Party supports this bill, the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, because it is an example of how some issues in local government can be addressed in a constructive way, without undermining the current purpose and intent of the Local Government Act. The bill seeks to bring local authority processes in line with other Public Service chief executive remuneration processes. It requires any local authority to get approval from the State Services Commission on the remuneration rates—not on the appointment per se, as some previous speakers have suggested—for their chief executive, and that these rates must be moderated by reference to other comparable positions in, for example, Government departments and the public sector generally.

Local government provides huge value to communities. It is involved in a whole range of services that make places pleasant to live, work, and retire in. Local councils are responsible for significant assets—up to more than $92 billion of infrastructure and other assets—and it is very appropriate that the salary scale for chief executives reflect the significant responsibilities of councils. But it is also really important that they are not out of step with council staff who provide those key services. They are the staff who manage the libraries, the swimming pools, and the parks, and who organise the sewage treatment, the stormwater, the provision of water, and the recycling collection.

In Christchurch, we know that it is those people who are most important for our quality of life. It is the people who dig the drains, who connect the sewerage pipes, and who keep the water system running who are some of the most valued council workers and contractors in Christchurch. They do the strenuous and dirty work; they are often not rewarded adequately for that work. We have seen, as the member Annette King noted, the very controversial process around the remuneration for the chief executive officer of Christchurch City Council, when he was given a $68,000 pay rise, taking his salary to $538,000. That was partly because the consultants advised the council, and it was the council’s own policy, to align the salaries with the general market—a mix of public and private sector salaries—rather than aligning them, as this bill seeks to do, with public sector salaries through the involvement of the State Services Commission.

The whole process of setting chief executive officer salaries, from my experience in local government, can become incredibly politicised. It puts media attention on the salary, rather than on the issues that the council is dealing with. This bill is a sound step toward depoliticising that process, introducing transparency, and having a check and balance on what the council does. It is a bill that we will be supporting. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) : I want to reflect briefly on the contribution from Dr Nick Smith, who, for those who do not know, was the Minister who checked out of Cabinet—or maybe he does need to be checked out; it is one of the two. That member got up and gave an array of figures about the historical cost of local government. He made it up, then he accused speakers on this side of the House of not telling the truth when they disputed it, and then, of course, he blocked singularly—I think he was the only National MP who blocked—the tabling of those figures that show the truth. I just say to Dr Smith, as his hair stands on end as he speaks, that he has no credibility when it comes to—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: At least he’s got some.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That is true, Mr Finlayson. I grant you that, but I do not need to be checked out, unlike that member. I say this: Dr Smith has absolutely no credibility when it comes to citing figures, given, as Moana Mackey said, his disgraceful conduct in respect of manufacturing crises and saying, as Minister, that ACC was going to go broke, so that he could slash and burn it. And now we know, of course, that its investments are at a record high. That member is a bit like John Banks. His credibility is in the political sewer.

I stand as a Canterbury member, as a person who has lived in Canterbury for most of his life—both as a politician and before being a politician—and I can say this. In respect of the salary increase of the chief executive of the Christchurch City Council and the controversy around that individual and the mayor, not just because of the salary but because of the lack of performance, I have never seen—and I am sure Mr O’Rourke, who is a former councillor, will probably agree with me—conservative business elements and others in the community so united to rid themselves of an individual. I am not making a judgment on that, but they are so united to rid themselves of an individual, because of the lack of performance. I just place that on the record. I am not making a judgment on Mr Marryatt, but the facts speak for themselves. I have never seen a time when businesses came together and demanded that he go, and demanded accountability from that council. Therein lies the difficulty, because we have a crisis in Canterbury.

Let us just speak about Christchurch. We have, sadly, a dysfunctional, in my view, local authority, where there has been infighting, and where there has been a lack of transparency. I would cite even Councillor Tim Carter, who is related to a member opposite and is a good councillor. He may not be the political colour that I am, but he is a good councillor. He and others have joined hands across the aisle in demanding accountability from that local authority. I commend Councillor Carter and others for that.

What the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill simply seeks to do is to obtain some accountability from that council. When you have a council in Christchurch that is dysfunctional and not performing, and a local authority area in Canterbury in crisis, and suddenly there is an approval for a $68,000 salary—and Nick Smith said, of course, in his usual slipshod way, slippery with the facts, that the chief executive officer did not accept the $68,000—in Nick Smith’s small, myopic world, this system works. Well, maybe he has forgotten the outcry that came from all quarters of Christchurch—all quarters of Christchurch, and across, by the way, the political divide, including some of his mates, few though they are—saying that this is not on. This is not on. Very few levers exist for a council to stop that behaviour. Why did Mr Marryatt not take it? Well, Dr Smith, wakey-wakey, it was the strength of public opinion. He did take $26,000, though, of course. He did take that.

If Dr Smith demands accountability and transparency, he should support this bill. If he does not like it, and he wants to improve it, then what he could do is allow it to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, show his real steel—if he has got any—and propose some amendments to improve it. But, oh no, tonight it is pray and spray from Nick Smith. He has no ideas himself. If he had legislation that we voted against, he could put it up again when he is a Minister, but he has checked out, in a number of ways, and he knows it. He has checked out completely. I would say that that member will not be back in Cabinet any time soon. If he does not agree with the legislation and he thinks it can be improved, then he has an option, and that is to get up and vote for it, send it to the select committee, and prove us wrong. But he does not like it. It has been proposed, and, yet again, he and his party have sold out the people of Canterbury.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill because increasing the salaries of local government chief executive officers has caused strong public protest—very strong public protest—throughout the country. That is especially so in Christchurch. Despite the comments by Nick Smith, it is the chief executive officer’s salary that is upsetting people, and quite justifiably. It is not the general salaries received by people who work in local government. It is not the general salaries of people who work in local government that is upsetting people. It is, in fact, the chief executive officer’s salary that is upsetting people. That is a fact. Go and ask them, if you do not believe me.

It is complete nonsense for Nicky Wagner to say that the processes by which councils are currently assessing chief executive officer salaries are satisfactory. I know nobody in the community who knows anything about local government who believes that the current processes are anything like satisfactory. So for Nicky Wagner to say that they are OK is complete and utter nonsense.

The Christchurch City Council did increase the remuneration of its chief executive officer by 14.4 percent—$68,000—to $538,000, and that was declined only because of the most extraordinary level of protest that has ever been seen in that city on any subject. This increase was despite the functions of the city council now being more limited because of the role currently performed by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. That simply does not seem to have been taken into account in the decision to increase the remuneration of the chief executive officer.

The council’s performance in Christchurch, and especially that of the chief executive officer, was widely criticised in Canterbury by both the people of Christchurch and the business sector. They had some justification for that. The performance failures were, in fact, partly admitted by the council itself, and it therefore makes it very difficult for the council to explain the magnitude of the remuneration increase for the chief executive officer in those circumstances. As a result, it was only great public concern that led to that increase in fact being declined in the end.

The Local Government Act 2002 specifies mandatory criteria for consideration by the Remuneration Authority in fixing the remuneration of mayors, councillors, and community board members, but it is silent about the remuneration for chief executive officers. This bill proposes an amendment to the Local Government Act that preserves chief executive officers’ salaries being negotiated and agreed between the chief executive officer and the council, but requires that agreement to be approved by the State Services Commission, effectively a power of veto.

New Zealand First agrees with that. But New Zealand First says that that does not go far enough. There is, in fact, another bill in the ballot, in my name, which has not yet been drawn, that would establish some appropriate criteria for application by local authorities in fixing chief executive officers’ remuneration. Those issues were not addressed by Nick Smith—a glaring omission of substance on his part, because it is not just about transparency; it is about the lack of criteria. The sorts of things that need to be included are to take into account special circumstances, such as the existence of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in Christchurch. It also needs to take into account what the chief executive officer of a local authority should receive in comparison with the chief executive officer of a commercial organisation. That is an extremely important point.

Those criteria would qualify the words “quite comparable to those that apply in similar positions”, as in this particular bill. There is a precedent for such a discount, because the directors of State-owned enterprises have what is called the Public Service element taken into account as a discounting factor for their remuneration.

So New Zealand First would support this bill, but at the appropriate time will move a Supplementary Order Paper to insert in this bill the same matters that I have set out as a list of criteria for the assessment of chief executive officers’ salaries in the bill that I have drafted and that is in the ballot. With those qualifications, New Zealand First will support the bill going forward. We look forward to further debate on those other issues that I have mentioned.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : Ratepayers across the country are receiving rates bills at the moment, and ratepayers across the country are telling elected members of Parliament how the rates in their city are hurting them. We have got together a package of reforms that will have some real impacts on driving down costs for ratepayers in New Zealand.

The guys on the other side are absolutely opposed to everything that we are doing, but their great reform, their great change in local government, is to change the way in which the chief executive’s salary is set. That is their only solution to the issues with local government. I have to tell you that this is not the solution to any of the problems that ratepayers across the country are telling us, as parliamentarians, that they have to face on a daily basis.

The way in which the chief executive’s salary and employment conditions are set at the moment is spot on. I have to say, as someone who has actually been through the process of setting a salary for a chief executive on a local authority—and I have done that several times, sitting on a chief executive review committee—that councils go through a very detailed process. Councils get expert advice from independent human resources people. We spent a huge amount of time going through the process of setting the chief executive’s salary at an appropriate level. Sure, you might not agree with absolutely every decision made by a council, but those are the decisions that should be left to councils to make.

Council officers are all accountable to the chief executive, and under the system of local government in New Zealand the chief executive is the only officer whom the elected councillors have influence over and have control over. Now we have members of this Parliament wanting to take away the control over the salary and the employment conditions of the only officer whom a council is able to have control over. I have to say that it certainly blurs the accountability lines, as well. Accountability is very important in legislation. We have to get that right.

Accountability is important because, in this case, if this bill was to go through, we would have an unusual situation where a chief executive would not only be accountable to the council but also would have a link to the State Services Commissioner. The State Services Commissioner is accountable to the Minister of State Services, and that would lead to a position where the State Services Commissioner would have to be answerable to the Minister of State Services, who would be answerable to Parliament on how a chief executive’s salary is set. That is absolutely wrong.

What we know is that we have people on the other side of the House who say it is OK for councils in the last 10 years to have raised their rates by 6.8 percent, when over the previous 10 years it was at 3.9 percent. That is OK! They are saying it is OK for, in the last 10 years, council debt to have quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion. They do not care about that, but a small portion of council costs, that of a chief executive’s salary, they are now expressing concern about. If this bill was to go through, it would be parliamentary overreach. It would be interference by Parliament in the roles of councils and chief executives.

Members opposite do not like what we are proposing, which is to limit the scope of councils, which would have a huge impact on the costs of councils, and would help to get the costs of councils down considerably. No, they want to tinker around the edges. They want to interfere in the role of a chief executive within a council. That is their only solution, and it would do very little for ratepayers. It would do absolutely nothing. If they really wanted to get on board and support ratepayers in getting the costs of their councils under control, they would be supporting our legislation. They would be supporting some real changes, some real reform in local government, and some real reform that would help to keep costs down. If a council is spending roughly $300 million, let us just say as an example, on expenditure, but its chief executive’s salary is, say, $300,000, that is one one-thousandth of the costs to the council. That is the only tinkering we are getting from the other side.

The process in place for setting chief executive salaries and employment conditions is sound. It is rightfully the councils’ decision and the councils’ decision only. This Parliament should not be interfering in council decisions on chief executive employment conditions. We should change the purpose of local government. We should change the scope. We should put in place fiscal responsibility to get their costs under control. But councils should be the ones setting the chief executive salaries. That is their core responsibility; they should be sticking with that.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) : It is my pleasure to speak on this bill, the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill. To be honest, I would be happy to support this bill if it was the “Local Government (Rates Moderation) Amendment Bill”. But that is not what we have got. We have got only the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill. If it was rates moderation, I would be very in favour of this bill, because that is the biggest issue that we are facing up in Auckland, particularly at the moment, with rates going through the roof in Epsom—10 percent a year—year upon year upon year. It does not matter so much how much money the chief executive officer is getting in his or her bank, but by how much the rates that people face are rising that we are concerned about, and that is what this Government is focused upon.

In Auckland we do have a real issue. The current mayor can blame all sorts of things for that, but there are two drivers that are driving rates up to unaffordable levels, whereby people—particularly those on fixed incomes in some parts of the city—are finding it difficult to make ends meet. The first of the two drivers is spending—undisciplined, continual spending. The Government has got its spending under control and is focused on getting back to surplus. Households around the city and around the country are readjusting their spending habits. They are saving more, and responding to the global situation. But unfortunately too many councils in this country have not quite got the message. They continue to go on increasing spending by 10 percent or 15 percent each year, as if somehow the households can afford to pay it. So we need to adjust ourselves to the situation.

The second driver, of course—in Auckland, particularly—is the way that the rates have been organised, with a very, very low uniform charge, which has put so much emphasis on to property valuations. That has driven huge rate increases into areas such as the North Shore, which some members here should be worried about.

Looking at this bill, which is really just a diversion and is not dealing with any of the broad issues in local government that are about controlling spending, it is a piece of nonsense that we will not be supporting. I would urge the House—and I would urge Annette King, who has a great interest in local government—to pay more attention and focus more on the issue that householders are concerned about, which is rates and getting them under control, and to focus on some of those basics that we need to focus on there. One of the main areas that we are going to be dealing with over the next few weeks is focusing local government back on some of the core activities and not getting so carried away with the four well-beings, which have been a charter for the massive growth in spending in local government over the last decade, since the 2002 legislation. So I am looking forward to hearing Annette King explain to us what is going to be happening there.

Thank you very much. I would so much like to have had the opportunity to show some bipartisan spirit and to have supported Mrs King in her legislation here, but unfortunately—like I say, if it was the “Local Government (Rates Moderation) Amendment Bill”, I would be very supportive. But it is not, so I have to stand opposed to it. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : Can I first of all thank most of those who have made a contribution in the debate tonight on the Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill, including the member who has just resumed his seat, Paul Goldsmith, and Nicky Wagner, the members from the Greens and New Zealand First—thank you very much for the support—and my own colleagues. But I have to say of Nick Smith’s contribution that it was a very, very shallow contribution indeed. I have got more to say about that in a moment.

But I have to say to Mr Jami-Lee Ross that he is very, very concerned about rate rises at the moment and why we need local government reform. Well, what an irony, because what is in the paper today under National’s local government reform? “Homeowner stunned at 225 [percent] rate rise increase”. Where did this happen? This happened in Auckland, and what does this poor person get? They get no footpaths, no streetlights, no sewerage, and no water, and their rates have gone from $4,300 to $14,000. That is the reform from National when it comes to local government.

Then we come to the contribution from Nick Smith. This is the man who brought in a policy that within days was proved to be made up of myths and a handful of egregious examples. He proudly had put up on a website figures that showed rate increases and debt of local government. Within 5 days they were removed from the website—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true. Not true.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Go have a look. It tells you that they were removed. It tells you that they were wrong, and they have never been replaced. Why were they not replaced? Well, the new Minister of Local Government, who I am sure was incredibly embarrassed, said he is not going to give the corrected figures, because it would distract from the reforms. Let us not base any reforms in local government on anything to do with evidence!

Of course, local government has got about $8 billion of debt. What did the Prime Minister say at the forum for employment? Remember that big forum he had on employment? He told local government at the employment forum that they had lazy balance sheets, and they ought to be taking on more debt when there is a global financial crisis. That is what he told local government. Local government brought forward much of its infrastructure spending. When you go through and look at what the money has been spent on in local government in terms of debt, it has gone into infrastructure. That is another myth from Nick Smith. I have to say his whole attack on the 2002 Local Government Act has been totally rejected by local government around New Zealand. I give a warning to the rural and provincial members of the National Party and those who have got a little bit of knowledge about local government: your local governments and their communities are very, very unhappy with the reforms proposed—

Hon Members: No, they’re not.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes, they are, and Nick Smith will be listening to the submissions when they come in.

I have to say that the National Party is totally out of touch with the public. To think the public do not care a hoot about what chief executives are paid is to be in la-la land. They do care and they want a process that is accountable. They want one that does some good comparisons—that compares local government from one end of New Zealand to the other. They want a process, and what do we get from National? We get a collection of amendments and reforms based on myths, wrong examples, and figures that are incorrect, and based on a view that Nick Smith had, before he came into Parliament, that he wanted every council to be a unitary authority. When he lost in his own area—because Tasman voted not to have a unitary authority—he brought in a bill that takes away the right of communities to vote for amalgamation. You talk about democracy, Dr Smith, but you take away the right of local communities to make local decisions by local people, by taking away the right to vote for amalgamation. Lost the vote in Tasman—decided to punish the lot. This bill, at least, is a sensible helping hand to local government, and not a big sledgehammer to crack a small nut.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I move, That the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider this bill.

Gangs cause harm and misery in this country. In January of 2009, 16-year-old Jordan Herewini was mown down in what was described at the time as an armed gang hit in Murupara. He died from head injuries after being hit by a stolen ute. Kawerau gang member Quentin Duane Pukeroa, a man twice the age of his victim, was convicted of his murder. Earlier that day Pukeroa had hassled Jordan, telling him to remove his yellow school polo shirt, because the colour yellow represented a rival gang. On 3 October in 2009, 17-year-old Kaingaroa resident Kaine Lewis died, following a gang fight in Murupara. His scalp was split, his skull was fractured, following two punches, causing his brain to swell. He died in Rotorua Hospital a short time later. Nineteen-year-old Norton Tāoho was found guilty of his murder, and Joshua Leslie-Whitu, aged 18, and Hēmi Winitana, aged 19, were found guilty of manslaughter. During the trial the Crown solicitor told the jury a gang fight had broken out in the town between Mongrel Mob and Tribesmen associates, following previous tit-for-tat incidents.

In May of 2010 a 4-year-old Whakatāne boy was abused by a Black Power affiliate for wearing a red shirt. The boy was screamed at, was prodded, and had his shirt ripped off him as he was playing in a city reserve—a truly traumatic experience for a 4-year-old boy and his family. A foreign exchange student was allegedly punched for wearing a red shirt in a blue town, in Kopeopeō, in December of 2011. The 17-year-old visitor to New Zealand was knocked unconscious, in a seemingly unprovoked attack. The assailant had demanded he take off his sweater he was wearing, and punched him in the head and left him unconscious. There had been other reports of people being targeted for wearing red, which is a colour adopted by the Mongrel Mob, by people wearing blue, which is a colour worn by Black Power supporters. In July of 2012 gunshots were fired into a children’s bedroom in Masterton in a suspected gang-related shooting. Following the attack, the police stopped all gang members on the street. The Wairarapa area commander said: “A gang patch is only worn for one reason and that’s to make people fearful.”

In July of 2012 a 25-year-old Hāwera woman, Yahanna Karaitiana, was jailed for 7 months for attacking a woman who was also wearing red. Karaitiana planned an attack on the woman after meeting her at a bar. With some friends, she staked out the woman’s home and when she returned they beat her up in front of her children—in front of her children. In August 2012 the founder of the Killer Beez street gang was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for selling large amounts of P and passing it on to associates. He was found to have $20,000 in his home. He was on a sickness benefit—receiving $175 a week. The list goes on and on and on. This is a list of the consequences of gang membership and gang harm.

You see, gangs serve no useful or legitimate purpose in New Zealand society. Their members prey on the weak and the vulnerable. They profit from the harm that they do to everyday, law-abiding citizens of our country. They are responsible for the drug trade. They are responsible for poisoning our communities through the distribution of P—methamphetamine. They are the driving force behind organised crime, and they are responsible for misery in every part of this country that they are present. They attract young people to them and ruin their lives. Jordan Herewini and Kaine Lewis are dead. The people guilty of their deaths are in prison—all under the age of 20, all young men whose futures have been ruined because of gang bravado and intimidation.

Of the 54 councils that responded to a recent Local Government New Zealand survey, a large majority—83 percent—reported the presence of gangs in their districts. The Police Association estimates there are around 3,500 full-time adult gang members in New Zealand, and it also suggests there are many thousands more who are associated with, or attracted to, gangs at a very young age. Indeed, in 2006 the police identified that three-quarters of offenders associated with clandestine drug laboratories were linked to recognised gangs, and I fear—for members opposite—the statistic has not changed. Indeed, the Department of Corrections estimates that 30 percent of prisoners have gang affiliations. It has said that gang membership in prisons has doubled in the last 5 years.

You see, people feel intimidated by the presence of gang members. They feel intimidated by what they stand for, and they feel intimidated every time they see them in a Work and Income office, in council swimming pools, in schools, and in hospitals around this country. Law-abiding citizens deserve to go about their business free from gang-instigated intimidation. This bill is modelled on the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act, sponsored through this House by Chester Borrows and championed by Michael Laws. The police estimate that between March 2009 and March 2010 gang membership in Whanganui decreased by 15 percent as a result of this law. They also said that overt gang presence was less notable by the general public, and there was a reduction in the levels of intimidation in the community and a reduction in confrontations between gangs.

This bill aims to reduce this intimidation. It introduces restrictions around gang insignia being displayed on the premises of departments of the Public Service and Crown entities, as well as local government in New Zealand. Gangs are commonly identified by their insignia, which associates the wearer with an organisation that has criminal intent. The insignia is often worn as a badge of pride, demonstrating a high probability that the wearer has committed crimes as a means to earn the right to wear gang colours or insignia. They are not badges of pride; they are badges of misery and of crime. This bill names specific gangs to be covered by the law. It will be futureproofed to allow the Minister of Police to add gangs to the prohibition list through regulation-setting powers. It will cover all signs, symbols, and representations commonly displayed to denote members and those with an affiliation to, or who support, a gang.

It includes all offices, buildings, and facilities both permanently and temporarily under the authority of the departments of the Public Service and Crown entities, and all offices, buildings, and facilities under the authority of local authorities as defined in schedule 2 of the Local Government Act; it includes the grounds of public schools and early childhood education facilities; it includes the grounds of public hospitals and health facilities under the authority of district health boards; it includes all the grounds of public swimming pools and aquatic centres under the authority of local government authorities; and it excludes residential dwellings of the Housing New Zealand Corporation—all places where everyday New Zealanders go to seek support, and all places they deserve to be free of intimidation.

Contravention of the law will result in an arrest and a fine of up to $2,000 and the destruction of gang insignia.

I want to thank a number of councils around New Zealand that have expressed support for this bill. I particularly want to offer my thanks to Mayor Malcolm Campbell in Kawerau, Mayor Tony Bonne of Whakatāne, and Mayor John Forbes of Ōpōtiki for their strong support. These are three men who are willing to stand up and be counted and who are doing the right thing for the communities, and I commend them.

If you live in provincial New Zealand, then you are likely to have known, or know, of some form of gang-related intimidation. This bill sends a clear message to gang members: “Your intimidation will no longer be tolerated.” It says: “This Parliament puts the rights of law-abiding citizens and your victims before those of criminals.” To gang members I say this: if you go to government premises with a patch, your government will not serve you. Instead, a policeman will. He will want to talk to you about all the nasty things you and your criminal mates have been involved in.

I want to thank Peter Dunne of United Future, John Banks of ACT, and Winston Peters and the members of the New Zealand First Party for their support. This bill gives important tools to our police. This bill gives important powers back to our communities. It targets more than 3,500 people who seek to harm law-abiding citizens in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : If a person does anything on central government property to make people feel intimidated, the law provides a remedy. The responsible Minister or the chief executive of the department or the entity can make rules, issue trespass notices, or take a range of other meaningful actions under the existing laws of New Zealand that stop the intimidation. If a person does anything on local government property to make another person feel intimidated, the law provides a remedy. The council can make and enforce bylaws. The chief executive can make rules or issue trespass notices or take a range of meaningful actions under the existing laws of New Zealand to stop the intimidation from happening.

This Parliament costs thousands of dollars a minute to run. This bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, merely duplicates existing law and is a waste of—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but interjections across the floor are unacceptable. I want to hear what the member is saying. If you want to interject, you interject against the speaker, and do not have this free flow across the cross benches.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

As I was saying, this Parliament costs thousands of dollars an hour to run. This bill just duplicates the existing laws of New Zealand and is a waste of time. The Opposition will not cooperate in wasting this Parliament’s time. We will vote against this piece of window dressing masquerading as legislation.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : For several years I was a Crown prosecutor in the Bay of Plenty, prosecuting jury trials in small provincial towns and provincial cities. Can I say that in the course of doing that, I met and had really quite a lot of interaction with patched gang members—probably in the hundreds. I met them in court, I have examined them, I have cross-examined them, I have met them outside of court, I have talked with them, I have briefed them, and I have actually been in their homes in small towns around the Bay of Plenty. I have been in gang pads. I have seen how they live. I understand, I think, probably as well, can I say, as anyone in this House who was not an officer—and I know we are going to hear from some officers in this debate—about gang members.

Let me tell this House that they can be personable, one on one. They can be articulate. They can be smart. They can be cunning, but together, and when they put their patch on, it is a very different story. Let me say to this House that there is nothing good about gangs—not a single thing that is good about gangs. They are thugs, they are drug dealers, they are rapists, and they are murderers. They do those things all around this country, every week of the year. This country does not deserve to suffer the consequences of that. There is nothing good about gangs in this country.

There is a different, somewhat trendy view from the Rajen Prasads of this world, from the do-gooders of this world who say: “Actually, you know, gangs are OK. They’re friendly, cuddly motorcycle clubs. As they get older they reform themselves. They have whānau barbeques, and everything is OK.” Well, I say that is rubbish. I have contempt for that view, because there is nothing good about gangs and this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, is doing something about it. When gang members put the patch on, they become a different person. They put it on for one reason: to create fear and to intimidate others. There is no good reason, as I say, for gangs and there is no good reason for gang patches.

I say that the Labour Party’s view and position on this bill is contemptible. Andrew Little says: “Oh, you’re just doing this to get tough.” That is what he says. Well, yes, we are tough on gangs and crime in this country. If that party opposite wants to know why it is doing so poorly in the polls and why the provinces wholeheartedly reject it, maybe it wants to look at its soft approach to crime. Maybe those members want to look at themselves and understand why they are doing so poorly, because actually we are tough on crime and we are tough on gangs, and we make no apology for everything we do that makes it harder for gangs to operate in this society. We have contempt for them. We have contempt for what they do. They are thugs, they are rapists, they are drug dealers, and they are murderers. I wholeheartedly support anything that makes it difficult for them, against a trendy sort of liberal view that we have from the other side that somehow we should be apologists for them. Well, we will not be on this side of the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) : Todd McClay, in his opening speech, started with a roll call of offences that gang members had committed. I challenge him and Simon Bridges to think that there is any member on this side of the House who is not angry or outraged at that offending. For Mr Bridges to sit there and call us contemptible and do-gooders, and have this faux outrage that we will not be supporting this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, I say is contemptible when they put this bill before this House to try to get tough on gangs.

John Key in 2007 said: “My Government will search out all legal and practicable means available for making it much, much tougher to be a member of a criminal gang in this country.” What that says is: “We’re going to get tough on you—don’t wear your jacket. Don’t wear your jacket.” That is how this Government is getting tough on gangs. It is saying: “Don’t wear your jacket in public places.”

I agree with Mr McClay that gangs serve no good purpose in this country. I agree they are out there committing crime, which all of us hate. But if we are going to get serious about tackling gangs, then take some serious action in some legislation. Do not bring this piece of legislation before this House. You sit across on the other side of the House with your faux outrage and call us contemptible, when you put this bill in front of this Parliament.

This is not enough. This bill is not enough to get tough on crime. It is not just a provincial problem—I have got a gang problem in my electorate as well. But if we are really going to get serious about gangs, then let us take some serious action against them and not bring a piece of legislation that honestly—in all honest opinion—is not going to make a serious iota of difference.

There is a difference between appearing to be safer and actually being safer. So let us take some serious action against gangs. Yes, we are outraged. We are upset that they are out there and we share the concern of the Government about what is going on with gangs in this country. But take it seriously. Todd McClay should go back and resubmit a bill that is really going to take some action against gangs.

Gang members love the brotherhood. Gang members love the brotherhood of being in a gang, and Mr Bridges brought that up too. But they also have too much spare time on their hands. So this Government could take some real action in making sure we do not have young people going into gangs by making sure there are opportunities for them in our country.

As Charles Chauvel said, we will not be supporting this bill. I am upset that that side of the House can call us contemptible and are outraged because they say we are not getting tough on gangs, when they bring this legislation in here.

JAN LOGIE (Green) : The Green Party will be voting against the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill tonight—surprise, surprise—though I must admit I have a certain sympathy for what I imagine is the intent of this bill, if not for the idea itself.

I have worked in the community, and I have seen young people recruited into gangs, and I have seen what it does to their lives. I understand that patches and colours hold a power and a symbolism that attract as much as they induce fear. Every time I saw a young person being prospected I felt like a failure. But the very sight of them wearing their colours alerted me to the need to step up our support. Without those visible colours we would not have known their need. We need to address the root causes that drive people to gangs, and to support vulnerable people within gangs to engage in positive societal contributions.

This bill effectively bans gang-associated bandanas in Government buildings. So I would be banned from Parliament for what I am wearing on my wrist if it had the normal squiggles on it, or I might have it ripped off me—forcibly—because that is what this bill allows. Some of you might scoff at that as if it is ridiculous and, actually, you are right to scoff at it, because it is ridiculous. It would not be ripped off me, because I am not young and the fact is I am white. There is nothing about me that indicates I might be a gang member, which tells you that this bill is not actually about the insignia. This bill is about the underlying assumptions we have about people and our insider and our outsider status.

The Green Party will be opposing this bill because we do not believe it will do anything to protect our young people, and we do not believe it will do anything to reduce the drivers of membership in gangs.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) : I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is a bold and commendable initiative from our fellow conservatives on the opposite side of the House, whose resolve, I might say, with regard to some matters of social policy we have had cause to be concerned about in recent times—in very recent times, at any rate. Mr McClay has done much to allay certain of our fears where this direction—or perhaps, I should say, lack of it—is concerned, with the introduction of this admirable and very necessary bill. I am gladdened—fortified, indeed—by the knowledge that Mr McClay brings this bill to the House with the blessing and, who knows, perhaps even at the direction of his party’s leadership.

It is a comfort to those of us on this side of the House who count ourselves as traditionalists that the National Party has chosen to send such a powerful message, affirming that its old-time stance on social issues is indeed intact, and alive and kicking. We look forward to that stance being reiterated, particularly by the National Party’s leaders, in respect of other issues of social order and morality as and when they come before the House. We are encouraged by the knowledge that National does indeed possess the fortitude to be true to the same values of old, which we ourselves continue to espouse. It is good to know that we are not alone, as we may have been given cause to suspect.

In the explanatory note of the bill, the bill’s author states: “Gangs serve no legitimate purpose in New Zealand society and the public has a right to be protected from their intimidation and the significant harm that they do.” That is indeed so. I have no qualms whatsoever in saying that New Zealand First agrees with that sentiment unequivocally.

There is a paradigm shift required in New Zealand society and in our thinking where gangs are concerned. For too long we have not simply tolerated gangs but, through our inaction with regards to their various deviant and criminal activities, allowed them to become glorified, to a degree. Young people, impressionable people, the lost, and the wayward are drawn to gangs because of the stability and the acceptance that they perversely offer to those whose lives lack any other kind of structure. They are drawn into the web of crime and deviancy that gangs epitomise and promote. They become trapped in the devolving lifestyle that such organisations inevitably gravitate towards, and in so doing they become part of the problem. They become pawns in the perpetuation of the antisocial and criminal underclass and underworld that is gang culture, and the people who live it and live by it.

Well, it is not good enough. I say to this House that it is not good enough in New Zealand. We have to stop this rot. It falls to us, to the good people of New Zealand, to put a stop to the evil that is the gangs and the gang culture. The buck has to stop with the members of this House, whom the people send here to be their representatives. We have to set the standard. We have to set the message. We have to send the message that gangs are no longer acceptable, that their time has passed, that we will not and do not tolerate them any more.

The so-called badge of pride that gang members wear needs to come to be seen as a badge of shame. The gangs and their various acolytes need to come to realise that we do not fear them. They need to come to realise that we have become angry, that we will not put up with their intimidation any longer, and that we will not tolerate them any further. This bill will remove the identity of the gangs from the public eye. It will remove the identifying marks of these packs of weak-minded ferals from public display, and from display in Government departments and other places where they gather to prey as parasites on decent society, from what they erroneously perceive to be some kind of position of respect.

Respect—what is that? Do they seriously believe that we respect them? Do they seriously believe that we fear them—these weak, sick, fat, unfit, drug-addled retards? Do they seriously believe we cannot do anything about them—that we cannot remove them from society? Well, we can. We are the Parliament and we are powerful. We represent the people and we create the law. We have the strength of numbers, the resources of the nation, and the capabilities of the police, and the military if we so choose, to call upon. We can pass this bill. We can pass this bill into law, and it will become another stepping stone, a flagstone in the path towards the complete elimination of gangs from our society and from our culture, and I say we should. I say we should do that. New Zealand First says we should do that. We are proud to support this bill. We urge all parties and members of this House to do the same. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : Gangs in this country are a cancerous, corrosive stain on this society. For members of this House to stand up and defend the rights of gangs to show their colours and to show their pride, when we know that gangs have no rightful place in New Zealand society, and when we know that they stand for crime, they stand for harassment, and they stand for intimidating good New Zealanders—for members to say that gangs should be supported and that this legislation is a waste of time—is contemptuous. It is an insult to everyday New Zealanders, who just want to live their lives free from harassment.

Members opposite tell us that this bill, the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill, is a waste of time, but members opposite spent month after month after month wasting this House’s time with a bill about the Royal Society, filibustering their own legislation. They now tell us that a piece of legislation like this, which will help to keep New Zealanders free from intimidation, is a waste of time. It is poor, it is wrong, and I do not support what they are saying.

I see, Mr Speaker, that you are about to call the adjournment—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the chair.

• Debate interrupted.