Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I move that the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just seek a little advice, because this is quite an important procedural motion. While the Minister of Finance is in the House, I believe he should have moved it. If it is possible, I think we should just stick to the correct procedure

Hon Trevor Mallard: Say “I so move.”

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that. If the Hon Bill English could just move the motion again, I would appreciate that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I thought I would take an initial call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Obviously, it probably would have been more convenient to deal with the three pieces of legislation at once because there are some particular issues that relate to all three bills. When we get to the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, I think that will be dealt with relatively quickly since we were not able to join them up together.

The two major issues in respect of the electoral finance legislation are in relation to the question of third-party limits on expenditure. It was very important to this side of the House that some movement was shown in that regard. There was some debate at the Electoral Legislation Committee about whether advertising made a difference in terms of the outcomes of elections, and we were referred to a number of pieces of research that have been done in this particular area. The statement that the royal commission made back in 1986, I think, is as valid today as it was then. It said that the question is not so much whether third-party expenditure is entirely responsible for the result of the vote; the real issue at the end of the day is whether there is the perception that the use of vast sums of money in order to influence the outcome is sufficient. Is the perception sufficient to give the impression that the outcome of the election has been affected by the spend, and does that lead to a lack of confidence in the integrity of the electoral system itself? I am very strongly of the view that it is important to have third-party expenditure caps because it does not make it effective for the caps that apply to political parties and to candidates if a third party can simply enter into the fray with negative advertising against the other side, without any limitation on what it is that it could do.

We had quite a lengthy debate about what the cap would be, and not many submissions on this bill related to third-party expenditure. It was interesting because the real debate was around the lack of a cap on the third bill, which is why it would be more convenient to debate all three bills together, but there you go. I think the reason that the focus of the submissions was on the referendum legislation rather than on the electoral finance reform legislation was that in the referendum situation there is access to television advertising. That is where that uncapped expenditure would come into play. I think it would not take much for people to work out how much association between the political party advertising and the referendum advertising could be made to look like an extension of a political party’s campaign. When we think about it in terms of some of the interests of those who will be entering into the debate on the electoral system itself, we see that obviously some parties have a greater interest in the MMP outcome being retained.

Moving back to why it is important to have spending caps on registration but more so on third-party expenditure, we need to go back to the 2005 general election. That is one that obviously I campaigned in, and it was one that I found to be an extremely unpleasant election campaign. In fact, in all of the election campaigns that I have stood in, that is the one that really will go down in my memory as the most misogynist and self-interested campaign. There was the promotion of self-interest that I never came across on street-corner meetings in all the years that I have stood. I have been a member of Parliament for 20 years this year, and I have never apart from that election had people on street-corner meetings asking what was in it for them. That was the only time.

It was generated out of a campaign that had been run on three different levels. The first level was designed to make sure that the campaign expenditure fell outside the regulated period. That was number one. They were the billboards. I do not know whether colleagues remember the billboards, but the one that sticks in my mind—sticks in my throat, actually—was the one headed up “Iwi/Kiwi”. All of the billboards were designed to send a message to the public of New Zealand to create a sense of division—“them and us”. Everyone was exposed to “them and us” all the way through that year, and it started at the beginning of the year with the campaign billboards. Who designed those? Was it Steven Joyce before he came to Parliament? [Interruption] Yes, and who were those people from Australia—Crosby/Textor, that is right. They were responsible for developing this campaign, which set off the year with a real antagonistic view—“us and them”, and the “Iwi/Kiwi” one was designed to cause the most racial division in our country that I think we have seen for a very, very long time.

We had the photoshopped image, the very nasty photoshopped image, of the Prime Minister of the day, up against this very warm and engaging image of Don Brash—we all remember Don Brash looking warm and engaging—and that was the dichotomy set up through the billboards. That was the groundwork done and it was done deliberately. It set the stage for the rest of the campaign, but it was designed to take us into the election campaign period where the expenditure would start to count. National spent a fortune, millions of dollars, on this campaign all around the country in order to set the scene for what was to come. What was to come also included another deliberate avoidance of our electoral finance laws and that was about National’s engagement with the Exclusive Brethren. We know that, because of The Hollow Men—and I recommend that people read that book again. I have been recommended lately to read it again, and I am going to do that over the summer holidays. We need to be reminded about who knew what, when, how, and why, and it is very explicit in terms of the trail of emails exposed in that book.

That is exactly what happened. The Exclusive Brethren went to the Electoral Commission with a design for their pamphlet, which had Don Brash’s face on it, promoting him as the next Prime Minister of New Zealand. When they found out that that would have to have National Party approval, and that it would count against National’s campaign expenditure, they went away and designed something that never mentioned National, never mentioned Don Brash, but attacked the Greens, and attacked the Labour Party for its health policies and its defence policies—and it was untrue. But worse than that, the names of the people at the addresses given for the promoters of these pamphlets were illusory. These people did not exist; these people did not live at these addresses. I went to one of the addresses in Christchurch; it was an empty house. So the Exclusive Brethren even used—or abused—the existing laws by not being upfront and honest about who they were and what they were trying to do. They were part of a pattern of behaviour in that election campaign that I do not think bodes very well for our country.

I would be prepared to say that the Labour Government did not get it right with the electoral finance legislation we put in place, and it is welcome that the House is now moving into a space where we have general broad agreement. Although Labour does not agree with the whole thing, we are supporting a package of reform here. I think that perhaps Labour did go a bit too far with its legislation but it was in response to an extreme example of behaviour. I guess we tried to cover off all of the loopholes that we knew that people would drive a bus through if they were given an opportunity. So I think it is important that we have expenditure caps, and that we have legislation that can be enforced to ensure that that practice never happens again.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I will take a quite brief, perhaps, call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. These issues have been canvassed a great deal in the past with the Electoral Finance Act a few years ago, and now with this bill. I thank all of those who worked on this legislation, and all of the officials, who did a very good job dealing with three lots of bills at the same time. We had the MMP referendum bill, this electoral finance reform bill, and the Parliamentary Service bill at the same time—so there was a range of officials doing various parts of the work, and the advice in the Electoral Legislation Committee was excellent and very helpful. The process itself was very interesting. We had some interesting clauses such as the wood clause in this legislation, which means that the wood used for putting up billboards is no longer considered to be an election expense. There was lots of passionate discussion about where the wood for particular hoardings comes from. Sometimes these processes get just a little odd on occasion—that being one example.

I make particular note of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Green Party has put forward on Part 1 to reduce the donation disclosure limits currently in the bill. The donation disclosure limit is the threshold at which parties and candidates are required to disclose to the public who has given them donations. In previous times it was $1,500 for a candidate, if I remember rightly—I might have that wrong—but in any event this legislation has increased that threshold. It is now easier for candidates and for political parties to hide the source of the money donated to them for their election campaign. The only argument put forward as to why it was necessary to make it easier for political parties to potentially engage in more corrupt practices—frankly, that is what that is—is all of the other financial limits in the rest of the bill, like the limit that a candidate could spend, for example, went up. The logic that everything else went up so why not put this one up as well is ridiculous. It is absolutely irrational.

The purpose of having a low disclosure threshold for donations is so that the public know who is giving money to candidates and political parties so they can assess whether there is some form of payback likely or possible in the party or candidates’ policy should they be elected to Parliament. It has nothing to do with whether candidates should be able to spend more. We can have that argument over here. It has nothing to do with the fact that the public are entitled to the highest levels of transparency and to a system that is always striving to be the least corrupt that it can be and to have the highest levels of integrity that it can have. What this legislation is doing, amongst a number of very good things such as the spending cap for third parties, which the Greens support, is enabling candidates and political parties to engage in a greater level of potential corrupt practice, and that cannot be acceptable. It is not acceptable to the public and it should not be acceptable to this House; we should not be passing legislation that allows this to happen. This is a very, very serious concern that was dismissed in large part by the members of the select committee across the board, as far as I understand, particularly those from ACT and National. Obviously they do not mind that we have a less transparent system, and they do not mind that we have a system that has a great deal less integrity, particularly when it comes to transparency for the public about where political parties are getting the money from.

We have also seen recently the same issue being raised at local government level. My colleague Russel Norman has legislation that would require the same levels of disclosure at local body election level as is required for MPs and for parties, so that the public know who donates money to local government, local body election campaigns, and candidates. It is quite right that that happens. I say, again, that we cannot allow, or continue to allow, political players to seek and to receive donations from interests that may, in fact, be paying this money in order to get policy kickbacks later on. That is the threat. That is why we have a significant regime that protects the integrity of the system. We need that in local government as well as at central government level, and, as I said, the Green Party has a member’s bill that will do that. We hope that in time it comes up in the ballot and we can have that debate.

It makes it very difficult to look at making those changes at a local government level when, even at this level in terms of the general election, some of the parties in this Chamber appeared to have allowed this change to happen. So the Green Party has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to reduce the disclosure thresholds from $1,500 to $1,000 for a candidate, and from $15,000 to $1,000 for a party. We sincerely hope that other political parties support this amendment and make a stand in favour of transparency, of honest, healthy politics, and of a situation where the public can continue to have faith in the integrity of our system. As members of Parliament and as political parties we continually seek to improve the integrity of the system. Unfortunately, this legislation fails to do that. It erodes the integrity of the system and erodes the faith and trust that the public have in us to set the rules for how we operate and what benefits us in a way that preferably benefits them more. That is not what we are doing with the change in this legislation.

I sincerely ask and hope that MPs and parties across the House support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper to lower the disclosure thresholds for transparency of donors to political parties and to candidates. Thank you.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : The ACT Party will be opposing the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage, but I will start by acknowledging that there was a proposal that the three bills to be discussed today should have been debated together. Although the Hon Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that she and Labour would have preferred the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, and the Electoral Referendum Bill to be discussed together, I will put on the record that the ACT Party was the party, or one of the parties, that objected to that. We see a very big difference particularly between the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill, although there are some issues that relate to both bills.

The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front, because the provisions in this bill are a very, very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign, which I will come back to later, but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill, when it went out to the public for submission, was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate, before they so much as spent a single dollar, they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend, but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election, they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill.

Hon Judith Collins: You were there.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I am reminded by the Minister of Police, the Hon Judith Collins, that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many, many other New Zealanders.

Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that, as a result of that widespread public opposition, the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified, and I think the limit was increased to $5,000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted, but certainly when it was put out for public discussion, it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation.

The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes, that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However, this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising.

Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders, either by themselves or in organisations, to spend no more than $300,000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is, $300,000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren, the Catholics, the St John Ambulance, Family First, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300,000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill, the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact, it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend.

I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very, very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well, she may have unpleasant memories of 2005, but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall, as I am sure many New Zealanders do, the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very, very wrong she was.

Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again, I put that $300,000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20,000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1,032,000 plus $25,000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour, with their broadcasting allocations, the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate, ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits, and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate.

I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties, and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300,000, or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $500,000 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members who will be making a contribution to debate on this part that it is about the nuts and the bolts of the bill. Some speeches have bordered more on being second and third reading speeches, but I have been tolerant today.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I will take a brief call, in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and, as a consequence, why we need clause 27, or any provisions relating to donations.

I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill, because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10,000 or more, or of $15,000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust, and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10,000 or $15,000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars.

Hon Judith Collins: No! Big business.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5,000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500,000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250,000. How do we justify that?

Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money, and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money.

Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left, some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown, and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right.

The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27, Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially, in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown, the Mayor of Auckland, selected by the Labour Party, whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust, and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact, Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum.

I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament, but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes, there are restrictions on donations, and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose, but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown, whether they are from the left or the right, because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland, and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party, they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party, the National Party, the ACT Party, or the Māori Party. People are entitled to their privacy.

We will be voting against this part—[Interruption]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill, the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes, the member mentioned clause 27, but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill, as it is opposed to the whole bill.

We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge, quite genuinely, Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour, at the last election, inflicted on the people of New Zealand, and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will take only a very brief call on this clause. By way of introductory comment, I will say that it is a mistake to view as anything other than something procedurally useful to the Committee the sensible suggestion to deal with the three bills as a single question, because the bills raise the same issues. It does not mean that we do not get to vote separately on each bill; it means that we just have a single debate to cover the three of them. Anyway, that was not to be. For the life of me, I do not understand why that was not accepted by the ACT Party. It is beyond my comprehension, but there we go. It was suggested simply as a way of being helpful.

The only thing I want to say about this bill, which is why I did not want to take calls on separate bills, is to say how pleased I am that we have managed to get the definitional provisions aligned so that we are absolutely clear-cut that taxpayers’ money is not spent on election advertising, that there is no crossover point now, and that during the regulated period the rules are absolutely clear-cut. That will enable us to be absolutely sure that when we look our masters in the eye, our taxpayers, we are able to give them a cast-iron guarantee that the rules have been written so that there can be no crossover. There will be no taxpayer money spent on electoral advertising, and that is the way it should be.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I will make a brief comment. I first acknowledge that the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill deals with some issues that have been difficulties for Parliament for quite some time. I think it is fair to say there has been no attempt to rort systems, but there has been a series of rules in place that were somewhat unclear. So the clarity that will come from this legislation is very, very welcome.

I acknowledge the Electoral Legislation Committee, which worked on this bill. Its membership was pretty much equally split between members who have recently come to Parliament and those who have been here for a longer period of time. There were people on the committee who had not gone through an election where they were personally elected, and, therefore a situation of having had their use of funding questioned. There were others who had some 34 election experiences between them. So there were fresh sets of eyes coming in, plus those who had gone through this experience over a period of years. I think for that reason we can have quite a bit of confidence that this bill gets to the heart of the matter.

My only concern, if I had one, was that there is a provision in the back of the bill for the recovery of amounts that were validly paid by Parliamentary Service to members through their entitlement, but which can be recovered subsequently upon another body, the Electoral Commission, determining that those payments, for advertising or whatever it was, did not comply. I think what we have put there is a fair check and a fair balance in terms of the provisions. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in the speech that preceded mine, we do now have the basis for much, much clearer rules. So I congratulate the committee on that work, and particularly Amy Adams on her leadership of the committee. She is a new member herself, who was looking at legislation that, hopefully, she will have many, many occasions to resort to. Thank you.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I shall take a brief call on the Electoral Referendum Bill. The Green Party was very pleased with the discussion at the Electoral Legislation Committee about how the referendum was to be structured. There was a lot of discussion about the nature of the ballot paper itself and ensuring that the language used was readily understood. We used an English for speakers of other languages process to test that it was easily understood and that simple language was used to help those for whom English is a second language or who have difficulties with literacy. Some good work was done on this bill.

The Green Party was also very pleased to see caps on spending by the various players involved in the referendum campaign. Of course, at the last referendum we saw extraordinary amounts of money thrown at an attempt to keep first past the post—and the same people will attempt to return us to it this time, actually. They fought very hard last time for first past the post and used vast quantities of money. So we are very pleased to see the caps, notwithstanding the fact that I know that other parties disagree with it.

The issue we had with the bill, however, was the question of the point at which MMP will be reviewed. The provision in the bill, as it stands, is that if MMP wins the first referendum in 2011, there will be a review of MMP at that point. It will concern a number of factors, and the bill sets out some of those. That is good; we should continually review our electoral system to see what is working and what is not. MMP is still comparatively young in this country. It has been in use only since 1999, so it is important to—

Hon Member: 1996.

METIRIA TUREI: —1996, sorry. It is important to look at it and, in light of the experience we have had, to decide what changes need to be made. When the public are asked about MMP they have lots of ideas about what could be changed, and that is an important discussion for us to have. But the Greens say that that discussion should have happened before the proposition of a referendum was put forward. Voters, the public, citizens are entitled to a structured and resourced discussion on the kind of electoral system they want. If MMP was going to be put to the vote again, there should have been a chance for the public to engage in a discussion on the flaws and benefits of the current system of MMP before going to a vote on it. That would have been a way to ensure that our community had the best information available and were able to participate in the kind of system we should have. That did not happen, because of some strange electoral promise that, it appears, National made to somebody, although nobody knows whom. It came out of the blue that there would be a referendum. So now we are to have one. It is always up to the public to decide to vote on the electoral system, and that is fair enough.

As I said, MMP will be reviewed after the 2011 election, if it is successful in the referendum. But if it is not successful, then the system we will have during the period 2011 to 2014, in the lead up to a runoff between MMP and a new system, is the old form of MMP, which has not been changed since 1996. It will be compared with a very new system that will have been developed in light of our experience of MMP and in light of different electoral developments internationally. It will be a system that has been devised according to the best practice that we know of at the time. So it will not be a fair runoff. It will not be a fair runoff. Not only that; because of the process for constructing the new system and what it will look like, information about it will have been made very clear and available to the public. There will be a lot of discussion about the way that a new system might work and a lot of public engagement in that process. But there will not be a lot of discussion about, and engagement in, the MMP system that we use now, because so much focus will be on the new system. So the public discussion on the two different options they will be asked to vote for will be very, very different. The level of knowledge and information available to the public about the two systems that they will have to choose from will be very, very different. Because MMP will not have been reviewed, there will be the same level of public discussion about MMP and how it could be better.

The Green Party says there should be a review of MMP regardless of the outcome of the 2011 referendum. We say the public is entitled to have a say on, and make changes to, the MMP system, regardless of the referendum result, so that should MMP not succeed at the next referendum, the public will have the best choices from which they can make their decision. They will have available to them the most information about the benefits and the disadvantages of both systems. That is only right, because the voting system is a system that belongs to the people, it is a system that belongs to citizens, and citizens are entitled to make decisions based on the best possible information. There will not be that opportunity for our community to have the best possible information and to be able to make a choice between the two best types of systems, because the old, creaky MMP that we know could do with a little bit of looking at will be set against the brand new, shiny version of something completely different, and we do not even know what it will be. There is a real disincentive here, and I think the Government has set up the referendum in such a way to make it more difficult for a proper set of choices to be put to the electorate in 2014, if MMP does not make it through the 2011 referendum.

I know there are lots of concerns about the nature of this discussion, but in my view, no matter what our views are about how we construct electoral law, the No. 1 most important thing is that the public have the best access to the best possible information so that they can make the best decision in their interests, because the voting system belongs to them. The Government in constructing the referendum as it has done in this legislation has taken from the community and from citizens the ability to have access to that best possible information, and that is wrong. We should not be doing that in legislation, and we certainly should not be mucking around with that principle when it comes to the most important question of all, which is not what Government one elects but how one goes about electing a Government. That has got to be the most critical constitutional electoral decision that any community will make—not who is elected but how they are elected.

What we want in this country is the fairest, most transparent, and most representative system for electing people to Parliament who are therefore represented in the formation of the Government. That is what MMP does. It is a much fairer system than the one we had in the past. We should always be looking to improve and make fairer and more representative our electoral system, so that the public can have confidence that when they go to the ballot box their vote will count, which happens under MMP—people have two votes and both count—and that they are represented in this House of Representatives, first and foremost; that their voices will be represented in this House by the people whom they most prefer to speak for them, which is part of what representative democracy is all about. But also, when we make laws about how that process works, we must have first and foremost in our minds the need for our people to have a fair system that they can have some faith and trust in.

I have already said in the earlier debate on the electoral finance law that I have concerns about the integrity of our electoral finance system. On this matter I think there is an issue of integrity, too. We are not ensuring that we have the most integrity in the process by which we are to choose our electoral system. I am not sure whether the Labour Party has put up the Supplementary Order Paper that it was intending to put up to make this change, but I want to highlight for the community that a real concern is that people will not have the opportunity to make changes and to discuss and consider the MMP system in the way that they ought to, should it not be successful in the referendum in 2011. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I was not going to take a call on this part because this part is not particularly relevant to the issue that Metiria Turei just raised, but I thought I should foreshadow that, yes, we will be moving an amendment to remove clause 54 from the bill, which is in a later part. I will talk to the reasons why we will do that at the appropriate time, because I am sure the Chair will rule me out of order if I was to try to discuss it now. He is nodding his head very sagely.

I will talk about clause 3, “Purpose of Act”. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for an indicative referendum to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the commencement of this Act, in order to provide electors with the opportunity to express an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives in New Zealand.” I think it is worthwhile to reflect in the Committee stage on why the purpose has been written in that particular way. As a country, we did not know that we would be having a referendum on MMP, despite the very widely held misbelief that we had been promised one when MMP was first introduced under a National Government in 1996, but we did have a very strong signal from National in this regard.

I have a quote from the coverage of the announcement made when Mr John Key, then the Leader of the Opposition, announced in the lead-up to the 2008 election the 10 election pledges that the National Party was taking to the election. One of the pledges—in fact, the very last pledge of that list of pledges—was a promise for a referendum on MMP. I will come to this point later on, when we get to the provisions relating to the caps on expenditure for third parties, but it is important to remember that we already have provisions in law on citizens initiated referenda. This is a citizens initiated referendum. It is masquerading as a Government one, and the deal was done in the lead-up to the 2008 election. Here is the quote from the New Zealand Herald: “Mr Key, who made the referendum one of 10 election pledges in his speech to National’s annual conference today, said he believed voters would reject MMP. ‘I think the country may well vote MMP out’ ”—that is a split infinitive if ever I saw one, but there we go—“ ‘but I think they will vote in another proportional system,’ he told reporters. ‘I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.’ But after 12 years of MMP it was important to give voters a choice, he said. ‘I do think voters thought they were going to get an opportunity to kick the tyres and we’re giving them that opportunity.’ ” I hate that expression; in fact, recently he has used it very inappropriately in relation to the Pike River disaster, as well. On this particular occasion, he is making it sound as if kicking the tyres is a very casual thing, but, actually, it is not. This is quite deliberate, and we know exactly who is behind the desire to have this referendum.

We also know that this statement: “I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.” was put there deliberately, because the target is the supplementary-member representation system. The target is to get rid of MMP and replace it with the supplementary-member representation system, which is first past the post with a winner’s bonus. That is all it is. It is nothing more than that. It is not a system of proportional representation. Of the 120 seats in Parliament, only a small number—30 of the MPs—are voted in under the supplementary-member representation system, so it does not make the result proportional, at all.

I think it is important, when looking at the purpose of the legislation in clause 3, that we are talking about people expressing an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives. This was a deliberate strategy to get this in front of the public eye. It has nothing to do with kicking the tyres; it has everything to do with the predetermined plan—well, I was going to quote that wonderful expression from Justice Mahon from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Air Disaster, but I will not use that language because I might be held up for a breach of the Standing Orders for that, as well.

When we get to the other provisions of the bill, I will certainly talk about the amount of the cap and why it is important. I will also talk about the amendment that I am moving by way of Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I will respond to the comments of Lianne Dalziel and Metiria Turei, but before I do so, I will place something on record. The Hon Lianne Dalziel keeps asking why we are discussing these bills individually and not as a group of three. Let me advise her and the rest of the Committee that the ACT Party had no objection to discussing the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill together. All we asked was that they not be discussed at the same time as the Electoral Referendum Bill, which we saw as a totally separate bill. We wanted it discussed in a totally separate debate, as had been proposed prior to 2 o’clock this afternoon.

Let me come back to the comments of Metiria Turei. Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that Metiria Turei had used the opportunity of speaking on Part 1 to engage in quite a wide-ranging debate. She related the history of MMP. I will come back to the history of MMP and the reason why we are having this referendum, but this afternoon Metiria Turei made comments that simply astound me. I cannot believe what she has said.

Metiria Turei said that there would not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. Those were her words. She said that there will not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. She said that we have taken from the community the chance to have the best possible information. What, she asked, is more important than informing people about, and voting on, the system that elects their politicians—not so much the politicians themselves but the options for our electoral system. She criticised the fact that people will be denied that information. Well, the reason I find those comments absolutely astounding is that I suspect the Green Party and other members of this House are voting for provisions that will restrict that very information and deny groups the opportunity to pull together and form organisations to stand up and speak for or against a particular electoral system.

The reason this bill is so flawed is that it restricts the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to spend more than $300,000 promoting a particular system. They can spend no more than $300,000. Metiria Turei should be taking a good, hard look at herself and at her party’s position. She criticises the fact that the people of New Zealand will be denied the opportunity to have the best possible information, yet Metiria Turei and other members of this House are doing exactly that, because they are restricting the right of third parties to be involved in this debate.

I come now to the comments of Lianne Dalziel. I think she made some very important points. Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Party are another group of people who have argued that we need to restrict the rights of people to put their position. I think that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has explained very well this afternoon why we should not in fact put on that restriction. She has just quoted a statement that our Prime Minister made when he was the Leader of the Opposition. She said—and I have no reason to disbelieve what she said—that John Key, who is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said that he thinks people will vote MMP out and that they will not vote for first past the post but for a new proportional system.

The reason I make those points is that the Prime Minister was making a comment. He was giving the public a steer. He was indicating that maybe it is not such a good idea to have MMP, but that if we are to vote out MMP, then perhaps we need to vote in a new system that is proportional—or, as Lianne Dalziel would argue, only slightly proportional. The Prime Minister’s view has huge weight. Just by the very manner of his position, his view has huge weight. If one takes the position of the Labour Party and is opposed to what the Prime Minister is saying, then one will find that we are restricting the right of ordinary New Zealanders to stand up and speak out against the Prime Minister.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And spend $300,000. How many ordinary citizens have access to $300,000?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Yes, they have $300,000, but they have $300,000 in the context of a general election where the Labour Party will spend close to $5 million and the National Party will spend close to $5 million. The Green Party spent $1.8 million at the last election, so we have no reason to believe that it will not do the same thing again at the next election. So in the context of political spending, whether it is $10 million, $12 million, $15 million, or maybe millions more dollars, people who want to put the alternative view to the Prime Minister’s—and I am not saying whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong—are restricted to spending no more than $300,000.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: So is the Prime Minister.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: I say to the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the reason why it is important not to have those restrictions is that the Prime Minister is in a very powerful position. He can make comments, which are carried in the media, that favour one particular voting system, and he can steer the public in a particular way. That seems to be what Lianne Dalziel is criticising.

So if people strongly support MMP—and there are people in this country who do—how do they counter the Prime Minister’s comments? How do they counter the free publicity the Prime Minister gets when he goes on national television and says: “Look, these are the faults of MMP, but we’ve got a better deal for you.”? The only way people can counter those comments is to try to get into the media, to try to get a campaign going, and to try to put up arguments so that the people of New Zealand are informed and can be in exactly the position that Metiria Turei wants them to be in—informed, and with very best possible information.

The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill. We think that the people of New Zealand should have that opportunity. It is a very, very sad day for New Zealand when we pass a bill that restricts the right of New Zealanders to participate in this referendum and denies New Zealanders the ability to get the best possible information, in the way the Green Party says they should be able to. Thank you.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I start by asking for your assistance, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that we are still on Part 1—is that correct?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes.

AMY ADAMS: One would not know it from the tenor of the speeches—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We have strayed a little bit broader than I would have hoped, actually.

AMY ADAMS: Yes. I thought that was the case.

I will make a brief contribution to the debate on Part 1. I will focus on clause 3, “Purpose of Act”. It is worth summarising the purpose of the bill. New Zealanders understood—the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned this in her contribution, and she acknowledged that it is the case—when they voted to switch to the MMP system of voting in 1993 that there would be another referendum on the matter. In this House we all understand that that, technically, was not correct. I talked in my earlier contributions about how the small print at the bottom of that very clearly stated that it was if Parliament agreed. None the less, there is a strong feeling out there that New Zealanders thought they would have another say on this. That is why it has always been the National Party position that we would give New Zealanders a chance to have that second say on MMP.

That is exactly what this bill does. It says to New Zealand that we are now 14 years into an MMP system of voting, and this is a chance for people to come back to the issue, to turn their minds to it again, and to decide whether it gives them the system that they thought they were getting. If it does, then we can move into a review of that system so the issue can effectively be put to bed. These things are never finalised, of course, but it would be nice to think that if, out of this process, New Zealand elects to retain the MMP system of voting—I should say “keep”, because that is the language we adopted with the paper—then that will certainly put to bed the issue of whether there should have been a second referendum. I think it is just worth commenting on that.

When there was a select committee inquiry into MMP in 2001, the issue of whether there should be another referendum was hotly contested. I know I was not here, but I have certainly read through all the papers. It was very interesting to me that even then it was decided by only a very narrow vote that there would not be a second referendum. The only reason why a second referendum was not supported was that it was thought to be a bit too soon.

If 2001 was too soon—and arguably it was—I think the time has come. It has always been the policy of this Government to deliver on it. That is why we have the bill before us, and that is why the purpose of this bill, as set out in clause 3, is to give New Zealanders the chance, through an indicative referendum, to once more comment on the system of voting that they want to use to elect the House of Representatives.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There are amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 5, 12, and schedule 1, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198, but they have been ruled out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that that amendment would not come up in this particular part of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have a running sheet here, and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert are on it. I tell the Committee that it has been ruled out of order in connection with Part 1 of the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper refers in part to clause 5, and clause 5 is in Part 1, so therefore I had to deal with that amendment now. I have made that explanation, so I will now put the question.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will take just a brief call on Part 3. This part deals with the total referendum expenses of a registered promoter in respect of the regulated period not exceeding $300,000. I presume that there are also amendments to this part from the ACT Party—it just seemed odd to be dealing with them in respect of Part 2.

The only point I want to make is that the citizens initiated referendum limit is $50,000, and as this is a citizens initiated referendum masquerading as a Government referendum, I think the amount should have been the same. This, however, was a negotiated settlement, as it were, between the political parties. We have swallowed some dead rats on both sides, and we are not going to have a debate about who swallowed the bigger rat—the Minister in the chair is looking vaguely uncomfortable. The reason this figure was settled on was that it represented the lowest end of a range that represents a medium-level campaign spend in the retail sector. We are talking, for example, about something that would include some television advertising, print media, advertising in the newspapers, and brochures being delivered to people’s houses. That seemed to be an acceptable level at which to resolve the matter.

Access to television was the one area where I felt there was an incredible sense of disquiet, and that was the reason there were so many more submissions to the Electoral Legislation Committee on the third-party campaign expenditure limits in the Electoral Referendum Bill, as opposed to the other legislation. Everyone knows that television advertising is very powerful. Companies would not use it if it were not as powerful as it is, and it can be used in a way that I think is unfortunate, in that we could see a campaign of deliberate misinformation about the effect of the supplementary-member representation system.

I know that every speech I will be giving between now and when we hold the referendum will refer to the supplementary-member representation system as first past the post with a winner’s bonus, because that is what it is. I will just put on record how that would have worked in the last election, and, fortunately, the New Zealand Herald columnist John Armstrong put it all together in a nice little piece. I will quote that into the record: “And before anyone mouths the words ‘supplementary member’, let’s beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. No doubt those wanting a return to those dark ages will seductively offer the supplementary member system as a halfway house between FPP and MMP. That system is in part proportional. It might look like a compromise. It is not. It is nothing short of snake oil elixir. Had last year’s election been fought under that system with a Parliament made up of 90 constituency seats and 30 list seats, National would have won 67 of them, compared with its current 58. That party would have had an absolute majority of 14 seats with just under 45 per cent of the vote. The Greens’ current entitlement of nine seats, would have been slashed to just two. So much for proportionality.”

I wanted to read that into the record in Part 3 because I want the public of New Zealand to know that they are not being offered a straight choice between proportional representation and a non-proportional system. They are being offered proportional representation in exchange for a version of first past the post, which looks as if it might be a compromise, but which is nothing of the sort. I think that with the campaign expenditure limits we have some hope for ensuring the public education campaign run by the Electoral Commission has some chance of success, in respect of ensuring the real messages get out there and ensuring people understand what the choices are.

The last point I make is in response to one of the comments made by the ACT Party: this is not a debate about freedom of speech. It is not about free speech; it is about paid speech. That ACT member said that he is championing the ordinary New Zealander who wants to speak out against the Prime Minister’s position on supplementary-member representation or against MMP, but that member is not championing their cause, at all. He is not championing their cause one bit. Which ordinary New Zealander has access to $300,000 in order to promote their particular view? There are those of us who will continue to express those views, and the expression of opinion is perfectly valid. But paid advertising should be accurate, and it should not misrepresent the importance of this referendum to the people of New Zealand.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I will respond to those comments from the Hon Lianne Dalziel because, like the Hon Lianne Dalziel, I was expecting a debate about the expenditure limits—the limits on the amount promoters will be able to spend for or against any particular electoral system—specified in Part 3 of the Electoral Referendum Bill. I was somewhat surprised that the Chairperson put the amendments from Hilary Calvert to the vote in the previous part. The ACT Party promoted an amendment that would allow third parties to spend up to $750,000; if we could not get Parliament to agree to a $750,000 limit, we suggested $500,000.

It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel criticised the fact that we put forward an amendment that would allow a third party the ability to spend $500,000, because she would call that paid speech. Yes, it is paid speech: it is buying advertising. It is what political parties do. Earlier this afternoon we voted on a bill that would enable the two major political parties in this Parliament to spend over $5 million—$5 million in paid speech, I tell Ms Dalziel.

Hon Member: How much?

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Five million dollars. Yet we will restrict the right of an organisation that wants to be involved in this referendum to try to sway the votes of New Zealanders one way or the other to the sum of no more than $300,000.

That is not the only thing Ms Dalziel misrepresented. She derided my contribution by asking which ordinary New Zealander has $300,000 to spend. We are not talking about individual New Zealanders; we are talking about organisations. We are talking about organisations that want to get involved in this election campaign.

I sat on the Electoral Legislation Committee that considered this submission, as did Ms Dalziel. She will be well aware that an organisation came along and submitted on this bill—an organisation that had formed to promote the MMP option. It was not one person; it was a group of people who purported to represent a much larger group of people, and they sent their spokespeople along. I do not know the name of the organisation; I cannot recall it—it may have been “Promote MMP” or “Pro-MMP”—but certainly an organisation had formed for the purposes of promoting MMP. That is right: it is not one person, but a whole series of people, an organisation—a grassroots New Zealand organisation. So for Lianne Dalziel to stand up and suggest that the ACT Party is talking about one New Zealander having the right to spend $300,000 misrepresents our position. Worse than that, she actually knows that she misrepresents our position.

The other point Lianne Dalziel made was that under the provisions of this bill, third parties—organisations such as the one that appeared before our select committee—will have access to television. They will have access to television to promote their view one way or the other in support of or against one of the four different systems that are being put forward.

It is interesting that she finds the use of television particularly obnoxious. The reason Labour finds television obnoxious is that it is powerful. One can actually persuade and influence people through television. We know that one of the reasons Len Brown’s committee put down for their success in Auckland was the early use of television.

Television is also denied to the smaller political parties in this Parliament; they are denied the chance to spend their own money on television. Another major failing of this Parliament is that it has not taken the opportunity to correct that problem.

Amy Adams: This is the referendum bill; it’s not the finance bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: This is the referendum bill, and I explain to Ms Adams that under the referendum bill people can form organisations for or against one or more of the electoral systems that have been promoted. They can spend their own money, they can spend it up to $300,000, and they can spend it on television. It is a pity that parties in this Parliament are denied the opportunity to do that.

Notwithstanding the fact that the limit is set at $300,000, the ACT Party will be voting for this bill. We support the right of New Zealanders to have a say on their electoral system; we think it is important. But also we think it is important that the people be informed and that they understand what is being offered to them. It is a tragedy that by putting limits on organisations such as the one that appeared before our Electoral Legislation Committee in Wellington—I think it included academics from Victoria University—we deny New Zealanders the opportunity to be fully informed.

I note that Lianne Dalziel referred to the supplementary member system. She called it first past the post with a winner’s bonus. I could take issue with that description of it, too, but I will not do so.

The other amendment that Hilary Calvert put before Parliament this afternoon was to do with the actual voting form that appears in schedule 1. I thought that I might have had an opportunity to speak to that before it was put before Parliament. Earlier this afternoon, the ACT Party put forward an amendment that would have provided for a vote in the referendum on the existence of the Māori seats. We did that because in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System the commissioners in recommending MMP also said that once there is a proportional system, there is no longer any need to have electoral seats set up on a racial basis.

Hone Harawira: They were joking.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Mr Harawira may well say they were joking, but they were not. The record shows that the royal commission in recommending MMP said if there is a proportional system, a system where every vote counts, there is simply no need for the Māori seat option. It is a pity that Parliament took the opportunity of voting down that amendment this afternoon. Thank you.

• Part 3 agreed to.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I have a very brief call to make, simply to alert the Committee to my amendment to the Electoral Referendum Bill, which is to remove clause 54. The effect of removing clause 54 would be to require a review of MMP to occur after the next election, and it would occur regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. Clause 54 currently requires the review of MMP provided for in Part 4 of the bill to come into force only if, in fact, the first referendum decides that an alternative to MMP is preferred. That then means that the second referendum, if National were to be re-elected, would be held on the basis of a flawed version of MMP, which people agree is flawed. Rather than actually fixing what is wrong with the system and putting that up against a new system, a flawed system would be allowed to go up against a brand new version of whichever system is preferred out of the four.

The one point I make is that if I had been writing the rules for this referendum, I would have ensured that MMP was reviewed before the first referendum, but I was not, so obviously Labour has had no influence in that regard. It was a Government decision to put the flawed version of MMP up for consideration without fixing the problems with it, and then to put it up for reconsideration. But given that situation, the Labour Party will make a pledge at the next election that should we become the Government, we will ensure that the second referendum is held after the MMP system is reviewed and any of the flaws in it are resolved, so that it will be the reviewed MMP system that goes up against the preferred option at the 2014 general election. We are committed to the same timetable that the Government has set out, but we will review MMP and we will fix any of the flaws that we find in that system, as evidenced from the input of the people of New Zealand.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : First, I will take this opportunity to simply say that the ACT Party will be voting against the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I assure the National Government and the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Justice, that we will be voting against this amendment.

A couple of comments from the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, need to be responded to. Given that none of the National members took the call, I will respond to those comments.

Amy Adams: Give us a chance.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Amy Adams said to give those members a chance, but National has taken just one call, I think, in this debate—one call since quarter-past 3. We have heard from Lianne Dalziel that MMP is flawed. Well, who says it is flawed? Yes, some people say it is flawed, but I ask what right the Labour Party has to pronounce that MMP is flawed. Who says so? Where is those members’ evidence? Where is the overwhelming evidence it is flawed?

Lianne Dalziel talked about fixing the problem. Well, there is no need for a review, and the ACT Party will be voting against her amendment. However, Lianne Dalziel raised a very, very good point. She has just told the public of New Zealand, notwithstanding the consultation and the extraordinary effort the Minister has made to reach agreement—and he has conceded a number of points, not least of which is a $300,000 limit on the right of free speech—that if Labour wins the next election, all bets are off. All bets are off. She said: “We have reached consensus, we have reached agreement, but if Labour wins the next election, we will screw you.” That is exactly what she said. She said that if Labour wins the next election in 2011, Labour will not proceed down the second referendum road unless the Government goes and fixes the system—the system that we do not even necessarily know is broken.

I put it to National members in the Chamber this afternoon that Mr Power is a gentleman. Mr Power is a gentleman. He has gone along to the Labour members and has consulted with them, but I say to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that they have been screwed. They have been screwed because they are being told this afternoon that, rather than trust their judgment, allow third parties to campaign for what they believe, and put the Minister’s bill through in the way that he had originally presented it, they have fallen for a trap. That is one of the reasons the ACT Party strongly opposes the $300,000 limit. Let me simply say to Mr Mallard and Ms Dalziel that a further reason for the National-led Government to be re-elected in 2011 is so that it can give effect to the compromised agreement that this bill represents. Thank you.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : To conclude this debate, I make a couple of comments in respect of Part 4, and in particular the amendment by Lianne Dalziel to delete clause 54 from the Electoral Referendum Bill. That was well signalled to the Government, and we were quite aware that that was Labour’s position. National will oppose Ms Dalziel’s amendment on the basis that we think it is important that the vote on the question of the electoral system that the New Zealand public chooses is between two systems that they have experienced and worked under. Essentially, that is the difference between the two positions.

To say that the negotiations between all parties have not been done in good faith is probably taking it a step too far. To be fair to all parties present in the Committee stage since 3.15 p.m., I have not seen any evidence of that; each party has done what it said it would do. In fairness, that is what we are ultimately trying to achieve by Part 4 and these three bills. There may be aspects of Part 4, the rest of this bill, and the preceding two bills in Committee that each individual party would rather have done another way. I can assure members of the Committee of the whole House that indeed we would have done some things differently, as I know other parties would have, having listened to their contributions to the debates this afternoon.

In the end, Part 4 and the rest of this legislation has to do one thing—that is, to endure beyond the change of Government where we get ourselves as a Parliament and a country into a situation where a winning political party forms the view that its might makes it right. The concluding point about the Committee stage of this legislation is to ensure that at the very least there is a consistency of approach to how we conduct elections in New Zealand, whether it be an MMP referendum or, for that matter, electoral finance legislation. There are many aspects of this legislation that parties would do differently, but the nature of broad consensus for this sort of work to endure is that we all have to come slightly short of what each party regards as an ideal position. To that end, National will not be supporting the amendment as tabled by Ms Dalziel. I am looking forward to the conclusion of this debate, the third readings tomorrow, and Christmas.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 54 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : I move, That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

New Zealand has a highly effective biosecurity system to manage the risks posed by harmful organisms, including the risks to our very important livestock industries. Actively managing those biosecurity risks maintains or enhances New Zealand’s already high reputation for quality animal products and our access to premium markets. Other countries are increasingly moving to mandatory individual tracing systems for their livestock. We cannot afford to lag behind our competitors.

It is vital during an animal disease outbreak to quickly find out the extent of the problem and start to manage it. This requires good knowledge of where infected animals are, and the other animals they have been in contact with. The National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme—or NAIT, as it will be called—will meet that need by collecting information on animals, their location, and movement history throughout their lifetime. That means we can more quickly and effectively target our resources to contain and manage a biosecurity or product contamination event, and provide evidence to reassure our trading partners. The scheme will also improve consumer confidence by providing more background information about the source of food products, to support general trade and high-value niche markets. It will support management of adverse events, such as drought.

The scheme will benefit both the country as a whole, and the industries and individual farmers involved. The scheme is a partnership between industry and the Crown that started in 2004 in recognition of the growing need for better animal identification and tracing systems. The livestock and animal products industries continue to be key partners in developing and implementing the scheme. I pay tribute to their involvement and to their constructive approach. I also know that there are members on the opposite side of the House who approved the development of the scheme in its earlier stages. I would like to thank them too for their contribution. The scheme will begin with cattle and deer, which already have some identification and paper-based tracing systems in place. The scheme will, however, introduce radio frequency identification tags and a computerised database to accurately record the details of individual animals and their movement histories.

The bill sets out the basic requirements needed to make the scheme work. They include the governance arrangements, and the powers and functions of the organisation that will run the scheme. The scheme will need to be flexible to allow for changing information needs. The bill will enable regulations to prescribe the detailed requirements for the animal sector or sectors covered by the scheme. People who are in charge of animals covered by this bill, such as farmers, saleyard operators, and meat processors, will be responsible for recording and updating information on the National Animal Identification and Tracing database.

But the value of the scheme goes beyond the information that this bill will require. The national animal identification and tracing infrastructure provides industry with a much more efficient way of holding its own animal-related data, such as genetic history and production data, if it so chooses. Improving on-farm management will help New Zealand farmers expand their comparative advantage.

This Government is conscious of the need to protect personal and commercially sensitive information from misuse. Although people will be able to access their own data, the Government agencies responsible for biosecurity and food safety may access personal data only for the purpose for which it was collected under the bill. The data needs to be protected, but at the same time it represents a valuable source for research and statistics. Permission may be granted to access non-personal information if it is in the interests of the industry and the public good.

Many dairy farmers currently use commercial organisations to complete their herd-recording and herd-testing requirements. This approach will continue under the scheme. After the scheme becomes law, the emphasis will be on educating people on the new requirements. But we are dealing with important measures to improve our biosecurity and maintain our international markets. We must have sanctions against people who deliberately evade their responsibilities and put the integrity of the scheme in doubt. The bill includes some offences and penalties. The highest penalties are appropriate for knowingly accessing or disclosing information about an individual, or commercially sensitive information.

The industry and the Crown will share the running costs of the scheme, with the bill setting out the principles for industry cost recovery. Other regulations may be made to help implement the bill. They include a mechanism to add or to remove species from mandatory scheme coverage following a proper process. The type of animal identification and whether it is for individual animals or for groups of animals, such as herds, will be assessed for each species in consultation with that industry.

In conclusion, this bill establishes a scheme that will provide accurate and timely identification and tracing of livestock at least cost. This will protect New Zealand farmers in the market place, bring us into line with most other agricultural producing nations, and strengthen our already excellent biosecurity system. In commending this bill to the House I wish Mr Kris Faafoi the very best for his maiden speech. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) : It is a pleasure to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will not take all of my time as I know the good people of Mana and Porirua probably did not come to listen to a debate on the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme, but, none the less, they along with the rest of New Zealand will be really pleased to know that this is a very important bill, and it was with much pleasure that I listened to the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon David Carter, say that.

If we go back 2½ years, we see that the current Minister of Agriculture and his friends in Federated Farmers campaigned absolutely against the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme. It is nice that the Government has had another road to Damascus experience. This is very, very important because, once the Primary Production Committee has carefully scrutinised this bill, we will have that system. Federated Farmers and others were, I guess, rightfully concerned that the system may bring in a huge bureaucracy. I will not go into the detail of some of the clauses other than to say that they specify right down to the kind of levies that might be imposed, the search warrants, and what might or might not happen with ministers of churches. So it is very, very prescriptive legislation.

The principle of this legislation was laid down by the previous Labour Government in 2008. I wish that my colleague the Hon Jim Anderton was here to hear the Minister’s speech, because Mr Anderton, as the previous Minister of Agriculture, put this measure up to the industry. He said that we needed animal identification and traceability to convince our trading partners that we have the safest food of the highest quality for them to buy, and that if there was any outbreak of a disease, then we had a sound and robust system of identifying animals, tracing them, and knowing where they were, so that we could minimise the spread of any disease, such as—and I do not even like to say it—foot-and-mouth disease. It could be something like that—yes, I said it. That would be a potential cost of $10 billion to this economy. That is why it is so important to have the highest-quality biosecurity systems. Unfortunately, the Minister failed to say that he had dumbed down biosecurity by cutting 54 front-line positions, which has put New Zealand at risk. But this bill is putting in place a system of identifying animals from birth right through until their death and knowing where they are. If there is any problem with disease, then we will know what the possible impacts or contacts with other animals or other farms might be.

When the previous Labour Government originally proposed this bill, we made a commitment of $10 million to do our part in this programme. At that time, National encouraged Federated Farmers to oppose the system. It opposed the system on some vague line of not knowing whether high-frequency or low-frequency receivers were the best way forward. That was the most sensible thing it said. A less sensible thing it said was that we did not need it. Mr King said the same thing. All of the National members said it. We need traceability of our animals so that we can convince our trading partners of the quality of our stock, of our food, of everything. Yet, for shallow political reasons, National and Federated Farmers opposed it. The Minister of Agriculture shakes his head, but he knows it is true. National now expects Labour to support this bill. We will support it because it is the right thing to do. We knew that in 2008 and we were progressing this legislation.

I will not say too much more. The detail is in this big bill. It will effectively put in place, soon we hope, an electronic system. Animals will be tagged; initially it will be beef and deer, but I think sheep farmers should be warned that they need to be part of this system, too—there is no doubt about that. Although we claim to be one of the best producers of quality food in the world, the reality is that most other pastoral and livestock - producing countries have traceability systems in place that are far better than ours, so we really are playing catch-up at the moment. I know that the Primary Production Committee under Mr Shane Ardern—who probably should be the Minister of Agriculture, and he knows that—will deal with this bill very quickly and enable the system to be put in place.

A number of people on the stakeholder reference group that is guiding this legislation opposed the initial roll-out of this scheme. Ian Corney, the Federated Farmers representative at that time, was part of the organisation that opposed the legislation, but is now heading the stakeholder reference group and is passionately committed to having an animal tracing system in place.

I hope that the technical issues of low-frequency and high-frequency eartags and how best they might work into the future can be resolved. Although the regulation-making powers in the bill will determine ultimately the technical system, Labour will support the system in the meantime.

I personally would like to see the next step that backs this up. I know the Green Party will support us in the call for country-of-origin labelling, so that when we do impose the cost of $2 to $3 on farmers, they know they will get more than that value back through identifying their stock as quality stock and safe food when it goes into the market place.

Labour supports this bill, welcomes it into the House, and acknowledges the great work done by the previous Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, to get it this far.

• Debate interrupted.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) : I rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Primary Production Committee.

Looking forward, the biggest economic opportunity for New Zealand to grow the economy in the way that the National-led Government wants to grow it is to export high-quality protein products from our agricultural industries. One of the bottom-line criteria in achieving that outcome is to have traceability. We must be able to tick all the environmental, social, and economic boxes, and traceability is a key to that if we are to maintain integrity in the markets. I look forward to the debate on how we will do that when the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before the Primary Production Committee. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will be taking a very brief call, as well. The work on this bill started in 2004. Like many bills that have come before Parliament in the last 2 years, this bill originated with Labour, and this Government is slowly getting around to bringing such bills into the House.

This issue is very important for the New Zealand economy going forward, particularly because overseas customers want to ensure that the food they get from us is of high quality, and that the animals can be traced back to the farms. They want to make sure that they are getting the real stuff.

I know there are concerns. Some farmers are particularly worried about cost increases as a result of this legislation, but I am sure that as technology becomes more affordable and is of better quality, it will be very important to make sure that the animal can be identified with an ID in the market place. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : Last week in a debate I spoke to my colleagues from the ACT Party about some of Adam Smith’s conditions for markets to operate correctly and for competition to deliver the best mix of price and quality. One of those conditions is information. For a market to deliver the best mix of price and quality, all consumers need perfect information about each of the competing products. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is about meeting that consumer need for greater information, at least in part. There is more and more evidence that consumers around the world are seeking more information about the quality of the products that they consume. That is both quality in the conventional sense—whether this thing does what it says it does, whether this particular piece of food tastes the way we want it to taste and whether it lasts as well as we want it to—and also aspects of quality, like safety; animal welfare, which is one of the qualities of the products that we sell overseas; and environmental considerations, which include whether a product is free-range in the farming sector and its GE content or otherwise.

Distance is increasingly an important consideration for many consumers. Consumers ask how far a product has had to travel to get to them, and many consumers are choosing to consume only foods that are grown or produced within a certain distance of where they live. All of those aspects are important, and the need for consumer quality is well served by the provisions of this bill that allow animals to be tracked back from paddock to plate, if you like.

In the regulatory impact statement for the bill we learnt quite a lot about the situation that the bill is addressing. I was particularly struck by the situation that occurred in February 2008, when the European Union banned Brazilian beef imports due to deficiencies in the Brazilian tracing systems. That came at a cost to Brazil of $430 million. This measure is really important for our economy. The bill has very important biosecurity implications and it should also be supported for that reason.

We have a concern about the development of the bill—the process that was used—because it certainly appears from the discussion in the regulatory impact statement that there did not appear to be consultation with the organics sector in the broader agricultural sector. That is of concern to us. The organics sector is a very important part of the New Zealand agricultural scene. It is also a sector that particularly stands to benefit if the system is well developed, because the organics sector has a good story to tell for those consumers overseas who are specifically seeking quality. Certainly in the consideration of the bill by the select committee, the Green Party will be specifically encouraging and looking for submissions from the organics sector and from those farmers who perhaps are particularly pursuing that high-quality niche marketing for their products.

I also raise a concern about one aspect of the bill, and, again, we hope that this issue will be well considered by the select committee. It relates to the enforcement powers that will be given to those who are implementing this law. The legislation’s enforcement powers include search and surveillance powers and detention powers—a sweeping range of powers that represent a significant imposition on the human rights and liberties of people. We will certainly be looking hard during the select committee process to see that the imposition on people’s rights and freedoms is justified by the evil that the Government seeks to avert. There is a related concern, which, again, we will be paying particular attention to. That is the fact that these sweeping powers are vested by this bill not in an arm of the State but in something else. I guess that the body that will be exercising these tasks is almost a quango. Again, that is a major alarm bell for our party, because we believe that substantive powers that impose on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders ought to be exercised only by the State, and under this bill, they will not be. That creates a particular problem.

Lastly, I come to the flip side of this legislation, and my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to this point before the dinner break. What we are doing in this bill is creating a system by which consumers in other countries will be able to track back in some detail the history of the foods that are produced for them by New Zealand farmers and growers. I ask when it will be time for New Zealand consumers to have that same right—when it will be time for New Zealanders to know where their food comes from, what it contains. When will they know whether it contains genetically engineered organisms or ingredients, whether it is grown organically, whether it is free-range, and whether it contains trans fats or palm oil? When will New Zealand consumers have those same rights that this bill is intended to satisfy for overseas consumers?

I was pleased to hear Damien O’Connor saying that it was his intention to develop a member’s bill on country-of-origin labelling. It does represent a very substantial shift from the position that he and Labour took in Government. But we recognise change, and it is part of the Green mission, if you like, to export our ideas. So we will be very pleased to support that bill. We call on the Government, having introduced this bill, to introduce that companion bill, if you like, to give New Zealand consumers those same rights to know what is in their food and where it comes from.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am pleased to rise and speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill, otherwise known as NAIT, which brings the New Zealand primary sector up to speed with most other agricultural producing nations that already have such a scheme in place. I am delighted to see this bill coming to the House, and I look forward to its progress through the Primary Production Committee.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I also rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. Labour supports this bill because it has its origins in Labour policy—we set the ball rolling. It is good to see the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, bringing this bill through the House. I acknowledge that this is the second bill we have seen from this Minister in the last few days. He managed to wrest $25 million from Government coffers for the kiwifruit industry. I would like to see him in charge of the Canterbury earthquake recovery, because he is so good at extracting money from the pocket of Bill English.

This bill is good regulation, and it is good to see. It is a shame that the member’s colleague the Minister of Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman, does not adopt some of this regulatory approach. We need to see some light-handed regulation to make sure we get the best out of our economy. I rise in support of this bill, and I look forward to seeing it at the Primary Production Committee.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : I also commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House. I would just like to point out to the House that the apple industry has been doing this exact procedure for quite some time, over many, many years. In fact, if members look at a tray of New Zealand apples over in Europe somewhere, and if they look at the barcode, they will actually be able to see which forklift moved which pallet of apples, and in which packing house.

Hone Harawira: That’s amazing!

CRAIG FOSS: Traceability—that is what it is all about, my friend. I commend this fine bill to the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : It is interesting to see that the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before Parliament. I am sure that this is an essential development and a progressive innovation towards having our produce received in high-value countries. However, in saying that, I think it would be a crime not to say that one needs to bear in mind some of the difficulties our farming system will have to consider in respect of implementing this legislation. Although Parliament might set this all up, one can think of those high country farmers or farmers in parts of the North Island where there is very broken, bush-covered landscape, and where there is the possibility of losing tags, and suchlike.

The Primary Production Committee will certainly be looking forward to receiving a range of submissions, especially from farmers and the industry, so that we get this structure right—it is very essential. I commend this bill to the House.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It gives me pleasure on a Tuesday evening to speak in support of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The reason it gives me pleasure to speak at this time is that the National Government is committed to certainty and security for older New Zealanders. Indeed, we have been working hard over the last 2 years to cut red tape and reduce regulations. We are easing the burden for older New Zealanders so that they can get the assistance they are entitled to. After 2 years of a National Government, this bill is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners receive their full entitlements. We are making sure that older New Zealanders, especially following bereavement, are not forced to fill out application forms and go through more bureaucracy or bureaucratic processes. We are making sure that older New Zealanders receive their full entitlement so that they do not suffer unnecessary financial hardship. I know that all of the members in the House believe that this is good news.

Over the last 2 years the National Government has delivered an extra $71 a fortnight into the pockets of New Zealand superannuitants, and that was completed this year. It has already delivered a double boost of tax cuts to superannuitants this year, by both increasing the amount of, and cutting the tax on, New Zealand superannuation.

In my electorate office we have a number of superannuitants who come to us. Often there is concern because they are not sure what they are entitled to. In many cases, we are able to provide them with assistance. But the good news in respect of this bill is that for people entitled to a living alone allowance, it will be backdated to the very day they should have received that entitlement, rather than from that date only if they apply within 28 days. When pensioners or those on a veterans pension lose their loved one, that is a time of difficulty when they would certainly have many other things on their mind. When this bill enters into force those people will be able to receive their full entitlement from the day they are eligible for it, not just if they apply within 28 days, or, otherwise, from the day they apply for it.

This is very good legislation, and I am glad that many parties in this Parliament have committed their support to it. Indeed, I hope that all members of this House will support this legislation. It will get out of the way some unnecessary red tape, it will certainly remove some of the uncertainty that many of our pensioners suffer from, and it will deliver them financial assistance when they very much need it. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : Labour supports the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The bill amends three main aspects. The first—as has been set out by the member who has just spoken, Todd McClay—is that it replaces the living alone payment and the current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension for single superannuitants with a new single living alone rate of superannuation and the veterans pension.

This amendment will remove the requirement for superannuitants to make an additional application for a full entitlement at a very distressing time, which is usually when there has been the death of a partner or a spouse. At the moment, when that happens they are required to make a special application to receive it. In addition, they have to do it within a given time period of 28 days in order to get it backdated. This can be a real burden on older New Zealanders, who are really finding it hard at the moment and are really feeling the pinch.

I note that the member who has just spoken talked about the additional assistance to superannuitants. I believe that if he has been seeing his constituents, as I have been seeing mine, he will know that even with some additional help in the Budget they are still finding it very difficult with increases in power charges, increases in their rates, increases in food prices, and so on. This change makes it better for a group of people who find themselves in awkward circumstances upon the death of a spouse, in particular.

The second part of this amendment bill aligns the definition of a dependent child in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act with the definition provided in the Social Security Act. This amendment is a response to a decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority in a case relating to decisions made by the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development in May and June 2008.

The third part of this amendment bill updates the definition of a boarding house so that it is brought into line with the definition that refers to a licensed boarding house. This is a new definition that has recently been amended in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Labour Opposition supports this bill.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I first thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for her consultation with the Green Party prior to the introduction of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I advise the House that the Green Party will support it in all its stages.

It is pleasing to see the Government’s commitment to rectifying two longstanding anomalies with regard to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. The first of these is that the living alone payment, payable to New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live on their own or in some cases with no one other than a child who is still dependent, is technically a separate benefit from New Zealand superannuation or a living alone payment itself. That previous sentence did not make a lot of sense to me, but I think it makes sense in the long run.

Hon Member: Sing it.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I would sing it, because I have a fabulous voice, but I think I would make everyone else feel a little bit weak if I sang it. I will sing when I have finished.

However, the Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic—

Hon Member: Sing of good things.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Here I am, supporting the bill, and now everybody is giving me a hard time. That is so unusual.

The Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic state of affairs, which is so surprising with regard to Work and Income! It has resulted in a small number of people who were entitled to the living alone payment missing out on receiving it when, for example, their partner has died and they have transferred to the single rate of New Zealand superannuation. No one at Work and Income has told them they also need to apply for the living alone payment. As a former beneficiary advocate, I can say that that was the norm. Unfortunately, Work and Income New Zealand often did not tell people what they were entitled to, hence the need for clarity.

The other anomaly this bill corrects is the provision under which the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners cease to be classified as dependent when they reach the age of 18, whereas children of working-age beneficiaries continue to be classified as dependent until the end of the year in which they turn 18, as long as they are still undertaking study. The bill will apply the same, more generous, definition of dependent child to the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners as is currently applied to those of working-age beneficiaries.

The Green Party welcomes both of these changes, as they correct anomalies that, although they affect only a small number of people, impact on those people quite severely. It is pleasing to see this Government’s continuing commitment to fairness and social justice for those eligible for State social assistance as a result of their age or of their incapacity due to military service—and military service only, in many cases.

However, the Government’s approach with this bill is in stark contrast to its treatment of working-age beneficiaries who are incapacitated for employment for reasons other than military service: those whose ability to participate in the paid workforce is restricted because of their childcare responsibilities, and those who want to work but cannot find a job because our economy does not provide enough jobs to go around.

The Government has recently enacted Future Focus legislation—or, as I like to call it, future unfocused legislation—that introduces anomalies into, rather than removing them from, the benefit system. It increases the likelihood of people falling through the cracks in our welfare State, being wrongly assessed as having the capacity for work when they clearly have not, and losing part or all of their benefit entitlement under the sanctions regime that the legislation has introduced.

Further down the Order Paper there are more bills like this one. They purport to rectify anomalies, but because some of them deal with accident compensation, they take an exactly opposite approach to the approach of this bill.

Hone Harawira: Come on, Catherine, we want to go home.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I know Hone wants to go home. I want to go home too, but I have a passion for social justice.

This bill addresses legislative anomalies by taking a fair and generous approach, which is a contradiction of the approach in many other bills, such as the accident compensation legislation, and such as what has been done to students in recent legislation, which is much worse.

I have had the opportunity to read the Government’s Welfare Working Group report and its options paper. Interestingly, bigger-picture issues relating to New Zealand superannuation were outside the terms of reference for the Welfare Working Group. One of the most significant issues of our time is outside its terms of reference. That, I guess, reflects the Government’s commitment to treating that group of New Zealanders fairly and with compassion!

The Welfare Working Group launched into a wholesale attack on working-age beneficiaries. It set out four options for strong signals to discourage the semi-permanent use of the benefit system.

Hon Member: Too long.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I have to talk about this, because somebody has to talk about it. It is really, really important that somebody cares about the vulnerable in society. I know that Hone agrees with me when I say that we have major problems with the benefit system. I am afraid I am just going to carry on until there is recognition of the problems that the benefit system has created.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am one person who does want to hear what the member is saying. Can we just quieten it down slightly, please, so I can hear Catherine Delahunty.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am now inspired to talk for a whole lot longer.

There are increasing conditions with benefit duration, including work-for-the-dole regimes for longer-term beneficiaries, strict income management for long-term beneficiaries, time-limited benefits, and benefit step-downs, under which components of the benefit are removed when a person has been on a benefit for a period considered “too long”—the Welfare Working Group suggests a year. These suggestions are appalling.

The Welfare Working Group put forward only four options to discourage semi-permanent use of the benefit system. That is what they called it. It is a shameful description for what was once a proud country that committed itself to looking after the vulnerable. None of these suggestions are acceptable in a caring, compassionate, and fair society.

Although we support this bill, we say that this Government exhibits a double standard in its treatment of those in receipt of State social assistance. As shown by this bill, it treats those who receive assistance on account of their age or their incapacity due to military service with fairness and compassion. On the other hand, working-age beneficiaries are victimised and harassed under this Government’s policies.

With that statement of the contradictions, I will finish this brilliant speech. It is very important that members show their appreciation, because somebody has to stand up for the poor in this bloody Parliament—and that is me. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I have much to say about the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, and I am very grateful to the whips for allowing me to take my full 10 minutes on it! I think all members will be better off because of that. In commending the bill to the House, I just mention the same point that the member Mrs King talked about, and that is the 28-day backdating. I have had a couple of cases come through my office involving challenging situations of deceased spouses, and people not really wanting to do those sorts of things within 28 days. This bill is a very good victory, I think, for common sense, and I commend it to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I will take just a very, very brief call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you have been waiting for this call; you told me that earlier.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It is nice to know that when a bill before the House makes as much sense as the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill does, it can be supported by members with the shortest speeches possible. This is unlike the situation when members on the other side of the House, throughout Friday and Saturday, took very short calls on very, very important bills. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : I seek leave to amend the date for the Social Services Committee to report the bill from 28 February 2011—as indicated in Minister Bennett’s speech of 24 November—to 6 May 2011.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that change, from 28 February to 6 May 2011. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Services Committee consider the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 May 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).