SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I seek the leave of the House for this bill to go from its second reading straight to its third reading, omitting the Committee stage, in order to have it completed today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I move, That the House take note of the interim report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. Today we are debating an unusual parliamentary procedure—an interim report by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on my member’s bill that sets aside the House’s consideration of this bill for a year, so that officials can undertake further research and collect further information on workplace practices regarding flexible working hours, and consult more widely with industry, unions, and other stakeholders about how best to deliver flexible working practices in New Zealand. It is a novel procedure and I do not think it has happened in recent memory. Some say that perhaps it has never happened before, but it is a process that the Green Party welcomes and considers very constructive, because it provides us with the opportunity for more research to be undertaken by officials on the extent of flexible working practices in New Zealand and for further consultation to take place, in order to improve the wording of the bill and possibly its provisions, and also, hopefully, to allay some of the fears some employers expressed about how the bill may affect workplaces in New Zealand.

We acknowledge that when the legislation on which this bill is based was introduced in the United Kingdom, it was Government legislation proposed by Labour in England, so the Government was able to have an extended period of consultation with employers and unions before it introduced the bill. That lengthy consultation period enabled it to iron out concerns and discuss the details of implementation. But because this is a member’s bill, there has not been the same opportunity to do so here. The 1-year pause enables that to happen, and we welcome that as a very constructive and innovative process.

I thank the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the Hon Mark Gosche, for his positive role in facilitating this novel process and for his support for the bill. I also thank all of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their consideration of the bill and all the submitters—I think there were about 100—who made submissions on it. We believe that the fears expressed by some of the employers who made submissions during the hearings on the bill were unfounded. We believe that if they really understood the huge proven advantages that flexible working offers employers in terms of increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, and so forth—and the tremendous success of the almost identical legislation in the United Kingdom—they would embrace the bill.

The quality of our working lives, work-life balance issues, and more flexible working practices, especially for employees with families, are huge issues in New Zealand, and survey after survey has confirmed that. A recent survey of 4,500 parents found that 93 percent of them said that the single change they would most like to see in the workplace was flexible working hours. They said they were finding it increasingly difficult to juggle paid work and parenting and they felt unsupported by workplaces. Regardless of their gender, age, or ethnicity, the need for more flexible workplaces was the single most important issue. It was the same in numerous other surveys. In a survey of 1,200 fathers, 80 percent said that they wanted to be able to spend more time with their children. Another survey by a recruitment agency found that almost a third of people said they believed their current working hours were undermining family life.

But I think the reason this is such an important social issue here in New Zealand is that we stand out internationally in terms of the proportion of people who are working long hours. On average, New Zealanders work 1,826 hours a year, compared with an average of 1,778 hours across the OECD. One study the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions referred to in its submission showed that one in five workers in New Zealand works 50 or more hours and, as its working families study showed, that culture of long and, indeed, excessive working hours impacts heavily on parents with children or other dependants. We heard in the submissions to the committee numerous examples of parents who were having great difficulty in trying to cope with long working hours and commutes, and with raising their children. So it is time that Parliament addressed this important social issue. This bill presents us with the opportunity to do so, and to encourage employers to go beyond the work-to-rule mentality and recognise the immense benefits in providing more flexible working arrangements.

I will not go into very much detail about the bill. It is based on UK legislation, where parents with young or disabled children have the right to request—and that is all it does. All it enshrines is a statutory right to request to work flexible working hours, and a framework to negotiate to work those hours. So it is really minimal legislation. The employer can turn down a request, but the employer has a statutory duty to consider that request seriously. In fact, many submitters among businesses that opposed the bill thought that it was about the right to work flexibly, when it is actually a much more modest right just to request to work flexibly.

The legislation has been enormously successful in the UK, even though it is modest legislation. More than a million employees in the United Kingdom have successfully used the mechanisms in the bill to seek flexible working hours, and 90 percent of the requests have been accepted in whole or through a compromise. I think a recent study found that almost 90 percent of cases were settled very easily, and many of the requests are made by email. It is very minimal and low-cost legislation but, interestingly, when the bill was proposed in the United Kingdom, employers there expressed the identical fears that some employers here have expressed—namely, that it would increase compliance costs. None of those fears have been realised.

One of the great things about introducing legislation that already exists elsewhere is that there have been more than five comprehensive surveys carried out by business organisations in the UK, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and the UK Department of Trade and Industry. All of those surveys have found that most employers in the UK—for example, 76 percent in one study—have had little difficulty with that new right. They did not believe that it had tipped the balance too far in favour of working parents. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 90 percent had no significant problems in complying with the new requirements, despite the concerns about that before the bill was passed. Sixty percent of employers who provided some form of flexible working hours considered the practice to be cost-effective; there were minimal or no costs. I could go on and on, but the good news, too, is that huge benefits were found in terms of increased productivity, etc. The legislation has been a huge success there, so why would we not embrace it here?

More than a hundred submissions were heard on the bill, which was overwhelmingly supported by women’s organisations, unions, and women’s business organisations, but employers raised three issues. They said that they did not need legislation, because they already had flexible working hours. They said that all they needed was education. The claim that we have flexible working hours does not stack up. Just in 2004 research by Toshiba found that few organisations in New Zealand have embraced the practice of flexible working. Most had only a vague understanding of the advantages. I have already cited the survey in which the overwhelming majority of parents said that it was the single most important change they would like to see in the workplace. If we had flexible working hours, then 93 percent of parents would not be saying that that was the change they would most like to see. The fact is that although there are some outstanding examples of workplaces that do introduce flexible hours, such as Telecom and Treasury, most employees do not have them in their workplaces. So we need legislation that ensures that all employees, and not just those who work at Telecom or Treasury, etc., have access to those flexible working arrangements, particularly when their children are young.

As for the argument about education, we have had education on the issue for years. It has gone on and on. The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust has been plugging away. In fact, back in 1971 flexible working hours was one of the main demands of the women’s movement. That was 37 years ago. Are we going to wait another 37 years for it? Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands—many countries go much further than this bill goes. They provide a legal right to request more flexible working arrangements for all workers. Many submitters supported extending the right, and we would definitely like to extend it, certainly in the first instance, for all persons caring for an elderly dependant, which has just been done in the UK, and, indeed, in time across the entire workplace.

We believe that this bill is not just about assisting our parents struggling with full-time work and trying to look after young families, although that is very important; it is about encouraging a more flexible results-driven rather than an hours-driven culture, and about a much more innovative culture in New Zealand.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) :Thank you for the call, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I will say at this point that the other person seeking the call, Mr Gosche, was the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I feel that that probably should be noted in the circumstances.

I guess what the report does is to sound a note of caution—which was certainly the National Party’s concern, to put it mildly—about this whole bill. We support the recommendation that more research needs to be done. I would have to say, however, that we anticipate that that research will show the opposite conclusion to that drawn by Ms Sue Kedgley, who is the promoter of the bill. There were a large number of submissions—there is no doubt about that—and they were divided. Many of them, I would have to say, were based on some misapprehension, in that people making submissions would often say that they personally did not have a problem because they had flexible working hours, but they believed that others had a problem and therefore the bill was necessary.

The key point that I and other National speakers wish to make—and it is in direct contradiction to the viewpoint of the Green Party—is that New Zealand actually does have a culture of flexible working hours, although perhaps not in exactly the way Sue Kedgley believes. We have a lot more part-time work now. A lot of families, in particular, value the importance of part-time work, because when young children are involved in the family it is very difficult for both parents to work full-time. In fact, the practice of working part-time is far more suitable and appropriate to the needs and demands of family life in such circumstances.

There is a huge amount of part-time work in the New Zealand workplace, and it exists for a reason. It is not because there are not enough jobs; rather, it is because it meets the needs of people seeking employment. In a relatively tight labour market—and I acknowledge that that does exist to some extent at the present moment—employers have had to be flexible in order to recruit staff. I imagine that the Green Party member might ask what the situation will be when the market is less tight. I am sure she would argue that we will need a more prescriptive approach.

I also want to make it clear that business organisations, and in particular Business New Zealand, the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Central) were not opposed to the idea of more education, more analysis, more discussion, and more debate on how we can deal with these issues. That was one of the things they made a particular note of at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That fact was perhaps not immediately evident in their initial submissions, but it was certainly evident in the oral submissions that were made. I note that Ms Kedgley acknowledges that particular point. There is an opportunity here, I suggest, for the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust to take an active role. That is, I imagine, the sort of the thing that would be developed and discussed in this year-long period of further analysis, consideration, and discussion.

One of the issues that did come to the fore—and I do not believe it has been properly acknowledged thus far in the debate—is what has happened in the United Kingdom. This is very much, in the words of Dr Ross Armstrong, a situation where first-mover advantage can apply. An employer can certainly provide flexibility for the first people who apply—there has been no real difficulty in the UK around that—and in truth that would actually apply whether or not legislation was in place. It is easy to accommodate the first people, because, frankly, not very much adjustment is required in the balance of the workforce.

Evidence was brought by various submitters in business organisations that as more and more people apply, the legislation becomes more and more difficult. It is much harder to accommodate the later people who apply, because at that point one starts to put real pressure on the accommodations that other employees have to make. So it is very much an advantage to the first people who apply and not so much for the later group. That seems to be one of the stresses and strains that is occurring in the UK situation, and that is certainly the evidence that was given to us by submitters.

The other point I wish to raise is that New Zealand is uniquely, and certainly much more so than Europe, a place of small businesses and small workforces. That means two things. It means that there is a very close and intimate relationship between employer and employee, and that a pattern of dialogue and discussion is just simply what happens in the workplace. Actually, one does not need complex systems of industrial law to accommodate people in that situation. If people wonder why unionism has dropped off so dramatically in New Zealand, and it has—

Darien Fenton: It is growing.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: —I can tell them it is because it is not relevant for small workplaces. I hear Darien Fenton say it is growing, but it is growing primarily in the State sector and in large business organisations. In small workplaces that is simply not the case.

Employers and employees simply do not see unions as relevant to their lives. They do not see the whole process of adjudication and so forth as necessary and relevant in their lives. People make their own arrangements, and when they cannot make their own arrangements they go and find more suitable arrangements, and often the person who loses out in that particular case is the employer who chose not to be flexible enough. There is a dynamic workplace environment.

I heard on the radio the other day Mr Andrew Little acknowledge that people change their jobs much more frequently today than they did previously. Now, that is hardly a revelation, but it was an important point for him to note. The truth is that people do not go for lifetime employment, by and large. They do not work for decades for one employer. Increasingly, people change jobs on a regular basis. Increasingly, people work in smaller enterprises, start ups, and so forth, and that is the fundamental reason why there has been a reduction in unionism. It does not fit the needs of many contemporary workplaces, but I acknowledge it has a role in more traditional work sites. So National is saying, yes, we are supporting this delay for consideration, but in truth we expect an outcome that is different from what the Green Party expects.

I want to conclude on this particular point. One of the things that is often said by members on the Government side—not all of them, I acknowledge, but some of them—is that, in essence, employers are only out to exploit people, that they take a dog-eat-dog approach to the world, that they want to have no dialogue or discussion with their employees, and that they just want to be able to set the rules and that is that. Well, I would suggest that the submissions made by, in particular, Business New Zealand, the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Central) Inc., and many other employers show a change of approach and a recognition that dialogue is critical for good working relationships. I guess that has been a fundamental lesson that has been learnt as our economy has become more open and more flexible in recent years, and as employees are much more willing to change their jobs—indeed they want to—more regularly.

The old-fashioned view that the employers are rigidly on one side and the employees are all on the other side, within unions, simply no longer applies in the contemporary workplace—certainly not to the extent it might have in the past. A new dynamic exists in the contemporary workforce, and it is our view that this bill does not recognise that sufficiently, and that there is, in fact, a better way of dealing with these issues—which are real; I acknowledge that. There are real issues involved, but there are better ways of dealing with them than this legislation.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I thank Sue Kedgley, first of all, for promoting this bill and beginning a debate in this country about the way forward on this issue, and I thank fellow members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, who attacked this issue with, I think, some genuine interest. The politics, I suppose, have been largely taken out of the report, if we read it, and we are actually trying to find solutions. It is perhaps a good course of action for other members who promote members’ bills to look at. Here, a promoter of a bill has agreed to have that bill held over for another year so that further debate, study, and, hopefully, education, can take place. In a year’s time this Parliament may decide that we do not need this bill, or it may decide that we do need to pass legislation. It gives a good opportunity and a window for people to actually prove their points.

The arguments put before the select committee were really about whether we should regulate or educate. Largely, employers indicated a preference for education, and, largely, the people representing workers—and that in itself was a very interesting collection of people; everyone from women in the law, through to business and professional women, through to the traditional trade unions—preferred regulation. Some employers also wrote submissions stating that they supported the legislation, but by the time they turned up at the select committee they had slightly changed their minds, which was interesting. However, everybody agreed that flexible working hours are desirable. The problem is in defining who sets the flexible working hours, and the select committee heard many different arguments.

What I would like to see, before going into a little bit more detail about those arguments, is this year taken up as an opportunity by the Department of Labour, employers, unions, and any other representatives of workers to see how the education approach actually would work in New Zealand, because we have a 12-month window of opportunity. Let us hope it is taken up with vigour, because at the end of that year the select committee will be able to say that the arguments were right—that the education way is the correct way and we do not need to regulate. I am hoping that all those employer organisations that came along and said that this is the way forward—and so did the Council of Trade Unions; it said that education was a vital part of this—will grab this opportunity and run with it. I think we would probably all be happy if we could achieve the result that this bill seeks to achieve, without regulation and without law. But let us see how it goes over the next 12 months, and see whether a concerted effort can be made through a tripartite approach among the Government, workers, and employers.

There is no doubt that the flexible working hours arrangements in some industries are good, but some are not. One employer submission just about convinced me on the spot that this law should be passed. That was from the Hospitality Association. What did it say? I know those people from way back. That industry has the most flexible working hours one can imagine in this country, because the hospitality industry is a 24/7 industry, and has been for most of New Zealand’s history. The association’s idea of flexible working hours is to go down the street and see about 20 restaurants all offering different, flexible working hours. The hospitality industry describes itself as being very democratic. The view is that if employees do not like the hours at a particular restaurant, they should just vote with their feet and go down the road and get a new job. That is the sort of unenlightened approach that makes it necessary to have this bill. So there is a big, black mark against the hospitality industry for the submission it made. That one single submission almost convinced me that Sue Kedgley’s bill should not only be passed but be strengthened. So that industry needs to learn something from the other industries that came along and gave us a much better picture of what could be done. Telecom made a good submission and outlined, as did other organisations, how it worked with its workforce to provide flexible working hours.

What was very clear from the Human Rights Commission was that we do not really know enough about what is actually happening in New Zealand in this context. Where are the good examples? How can other employers learn from those good examples? That education process could take off and make a good deal of progress in the next year. So we are pleased to see that the Human Rights Commission and other organisations are willing to help in this process.

We heard from workers who came along and said they have flexibility beyond belief. They came from the National Distribution Union and told us that their hours are so flexible that they do not know what their hours will be tomorrow. That is the sort of problem that families have to contend with. It has been interesting this week to see organisations throw up their hands in horror at the idea of a kids’ hotel, where people will have 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week opportunities to put their kids into childcare. I felt somewhat queasy at that idea too, having three adult children now, and watching my grandson, who spends quite a bit of his time in childcare centres. It is very different from my upbringing, when mum stayed at home and looked after the seven kids while dad went out to work. We have changed as a society. But people are looking at this idea of 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day childcare centres with somewhat of a queasy approach.

So what does that say about the need for real flexibility that goes both ways? I congratulate the Federation of Business and Professional Women on its submission, because it pointed out that childcare centres do not operate to cover those women who are suddenly required to be at a breakfast meeting at 7.15 a.m. and who are told that they are not pulling their weight and are not part of the team if they do not turn up to after-work drinks. They may have to contend with the sudden appearance of chickenpox and cannot take the kids to a childcare centre for those 2 weeks when they might give everybody else chickenpox. Do we have genuine flexibility on both sides of the argument in terms of employee and employer when having to deal with those types of issues? Certainly, a lot of the women who appeared before the select committee outlined their difficulties. For example, women lawyers indicated that about a quarter of the legal staff in New Zealand are working in a part-time capacity because there is not adequate flexibility to be able to cope as a working woman with the demands of a very busy legal practice.

So there were very powerful arguments from that side of the argument as to why one might want to regulate. But, equally, there were powerful arguments from a lot of employers. They came along and said in a very considered way that they have to take into account a whole lot of other things, and that the bill did not necessarily cover all of their concerns. There were contractual arrangements. Points were raised about seniority and the right to work extra hours in the bus industry, for instance. Contracts of employment have to be dealt with.

So this is an opportunity for employers, unions, and the Department of Labour and other Government agencies to get their heads together and work through a good education programme, in order to pick up on the research that the select committee clearly saw as being lacking. We have that opportunity over the next 12 months, and I applaud the select committee for taking a very mature approach to this bill. When we next report, Parliament will get a clearer picture of the situation. Hopefully in the 12-month period of time we will see a great deal of effort made by employers, unions, and Government departments to try to make sure that flexibility is a two-way thing, and see good examples shown by employers to other employers as to how they were flexible and how that might fit different workplaces.

The 12-month period also gives Sue Kedgley, as the promoter of the bill, an opportunity to listen to the submitters who have made valid criticisms about the bill itself—the way it was drafted and where the gaps are. They said it did not go far enough, and I agree with that. I do not think it went far enough in terms of the types of people it would apply to. There is no reason why others should not be entitled to this type of thing if it were made law. We have a good opportunity now as a Parliament to consider this matter again, and hopefully we will come back with a decision that is based on a lot more fact, a lot more knowledge, and a lot more work. So I say well done to Sue Kedgley for promoting this bill, and I again thank the select committee members for a job well done in compiling this interim report.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Let me start by saying that New Zealand First supports the concept of flexible working hours. When one compares this country with places like the UK, we see that to a large degree we already have them. When I was an employer some years ago, I offered very flexible working hours to many of my staff, and for many more comprehensive reasons than this bill provides for. Indeed, it was made known to us on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Employment Relations Act has actually strengthened the ability to request flexible working hours more than perhaps was the case when the Employment Contracts Act was in place.

The Hon Mark Gosche made some very, very good points, but I have to say I think he was a little bit harsh on the submitter from the hospitality industry. It just goes to show how one side can misunderstand the other side.

Hon Mark Gosche: I understood exactly what he was talking about.

PETER BROWN: Well, I took it from his submission that he was saying that effectively the industry has got to cater for its staff and has got to consider a request for flexible working hours, otherwise they will walk down the street and get the hours they want in the next café. But those members did not see that. It is like seeing one’s beer glass as half empty or half full, and I have to say that I think Bruce Robertson made that point pretty clearly.

Hon Jim Sutton: Will the member answer a question?

PETER BROWN: I will answer any question, but the member should put it at question time.

Hon Jim Sutton: Did the member impose flexible hours on his employees?

PETER BROWN: I am not sure what the member means. When I was manager of the Bay of Plenty Stevedoring Co. Ltd, I listened to my employees’ concerns and gave them as much flexibility as I possibly could. In fact, I am 20 years ahead of this bill.

I have to take my colleague Dr Mapp to task, because in the last 2 minutes of his speech, which seemed like an eternity, he spoke of a them-and-us culture. I say to Dr Mapp that when we compare this country with the UK and Australia, we can see that we have never had a them-and-us culture. There has always been dialogue. I have dealt with the toughest unions—the unions for seafarers and stevedores—on a day-to-day basis, and more than anybody else here. Nobody should try to tell me that they are a bunch of wimps, because I can tell people that they are not. I have to say to members that, in comparison with the UK, there is a huge amount of dialogue here, although the UK might well have improved.

I say to Sue Kedgley that there used to be a saying in the UK: “Get a bar of Lifebuoy.” That might be news to the House. It was a polite way of saying that someone had BO. I am not about to tell Sue Kedgley that she has BO—she has not—but most certainly she has got this bill wrong, and the polite assertions being made here will not give her that impression, at all. First of all—and she corrected it, and I take my hat off to her for correcting it—clause 3(1) stated: “The purpose of this Act is to grant qualifying employees the right to change their working hours …”. She changed that by stating that it means to make a request to change their working hours.

She made reference to similar legislation in the UK. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The bill sets out the reasons which would justify rejecting a request—including the burden of additional costs to the business and the inability to organise work within available staffing.” There is no reference at all in this bill to giving an employer the right to reject a request on the basis of cost. That provision is in the UK bill, as is another one providing that an employer can reject a request on the basis of the effect it will have on the company’s clients. Clearly, those provisions were taken out by the Greens before they put up this bill for a first reading.

I say that it is a little bit naughty to then stand in the House, both in the first reading debate and just now, and say that this bill is based on the UK legislation. It is based on the UK legislation, but some very, very significant clauses have been taken out. New Zealand First has a large concern that this bill applies only to people who have responsibility for young children up to the age of 5, or for disabled children up to the age of 18. It ignores people who take on responsibility for elderly parents or other family members, and caregivers at large. That is not good enough. In this modern society, those people play a very prominent part. I heard the member say that she will include them now, but I would have much preferred this bill to be more comprehensive when it first came to this House. As I recall, New Zealand First voted against it then for the very same reasons I am outlining now.

We welcome the year for education. The Hon Mark Gosche said that it was a question of regulate or educate. We believe he hit the nail on the head. We welcome the year, or thereabouts, to educate the public. We were told by Business New Zealand and other employers that they fully support a regime—for want of a better word—of educating employers, but we are not prepared to treat employers like fools. We believe that New Zealand employers for the most part know what they are doing, know what they can afford, know what they want to achieve, and have the talents to run successful businesses. So if they say they cannot live with flexible working hours, New Zealand First is prepared to listen to them, and to listen to them seriously. We need successful employers in this country, and we should be promoting and encouraging them. That does not mean we remove our sympathy towards people who want to have flexible working hours. We want that, but we will not impose these sorts of conditions.

Mark Gosche illustrated quite a few of the situations we heard about at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where employees outlined difficulties, and, I think, all of us on the select committee had sympathy for the plight of those people. But we also heard from employers who said it is very impractical, very difficult, or very costly simply to implement flexible working hours across the board. I think those employers should be listened to.

New Zealand First will support legislation that is fair to both employees and employers. But I have to say as strongly as possible that we will not support legislation that looks only at the needs of caregivers of children. We want legislation that bases flexible working hours around all caregivers, including people who look after the elderly. We have an ageing population in this country—500,000 of them right now—and in not too many years’ time we will have a good deal more. Indeed, I might be one of them in a few years’ time. I want to give people who look after the elderly a fair go.

As Wayne Mapp illustrated, under similar legislation in the UK a person can come along and receive flexible working hours, but those in the queue behind that person may receive nothing or very little. We think that situation is not flexible enough, so when the new draft of this bill comes back to the House, it must embrace all these concerns. It is a serious issue, and I do not want to move away from recognising that fact. If we are to bring in legislation like this, we have to get it right. We have to consider everybody and anybody who could be affected by it, from employers, to caregivers of children, through to caregivers of elderly folk. We need to be fair.

I believe that an honest attempt will be made by employers to try to sell this to other employers in a fair way, and I wish them well. The feedback I am receiving from employers and employer groups is that they have taken on board the fact that Parliament is looking at this legislation, they want to encourage its development, and they are prepared to play a positive role in educating their folk. But I want to make it clear that the employer must always have the right to reject a request for flexible working hours where there are genuine reasons to reject it. He or she runs the business and is captain of the ship, and New Zealand First is not encouraging mutinies.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : The Māori Party is pleased to support Sue Kedgley’s bill, because it is a genuine attempt to help people to balance their work and family life—although if I were to go across the road to my marae back home and ask my aunties how they were handling their work-life balance, they would probably slap my ears and tell me to stay out of their business and get back on the taumata. Work-life balance is not something that people in my neck of the woods have even heard about yet, although they certainly understand the need to work when there is work to be done and to stop to smell the daisies when the work has all been done. Yet trying to juggle the pace of life that is becoming more and more frenetic in today’s evermore complex world requires us all to consider that balance.

Māori are used to doing things like holding down a job while at the same time helping at the marae, running kids to sports and wānanga, organising gear for the school kapahaka, running the batons up, looking after the mokopuna, fund-raising for school trips, paying the bills, cooking for nephews and nieces who drop by every day, and keeping the home safe, and they still have time to worry about how their kids are doing and about where they are, who they are hanging with, what they are getting up to, and how come they are too tired to do any work around the house but they always have time to loaf around town doing nothing at all. It is those kids we are thinking about in supporting this bill.

I think of the way kids text one another instead of talking—even when they are in the same room. In my day it was kanohi ki te kanohi, or face to face, and that is how we got on with one another. In today’s world it is kōnui ki te kōnui, or thumb to thumb. It is a whole different way of relating to people, and it is hard for parents to understand, because we are so locked up in our world of work, work, work. We just do not have the time to see what the kids are doing. I can see how this bill will benefit working parents and their whānau, as well as their workplaces. In giving employees with young children the right to ask for flexible working hours, and requiring employers to take these requests seriously, this bill is what we like to see.

Yesterday I challenged this Parliament to hear the May Day signals and recognise, protect, and preserve parents’ rights against the onslaught of society’s drive to force mothers and fathers into the workforce. I made that challenge because I think this nation has had enough of the mean-spirited attacks on parents and their responsibilities, including the marginalisation and exclusion of beneficiary parents from the Working for Families package and the bizarre shut-down of one of this country’s most cherished parent support services, PlunketLine.

I just note for Dr Mapp, in case he has forgotten, that the reason why unions are not so strong is not that workers do not feel the need for them any more; it is that National passed legislation that smashed them. To Labour’s everlasting shame, it did nothing to return that power.

I made my challenge yesterday because I think of the need for us to move forward, and I have to say I am greatly saddened, in reflecting on the Working for Families package, to note that Labour’s Māori MPs not only sat by but actually voted for that legislation, which denies vital support to more than 100,000 Māori children. Thankfully, the Greens have heard that call, and I am happy to note that within 24 days of my May Day alert we have a bill before the House that supports parents in the workforce and challenges the culture that discriminates against employees with families.

I also take note of the report of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, which recommends that “Social delivery services … should continue to be specifically targeted and tailored to the needs of Maori, requiring more targeted research, evaluation and statistical data bases.” The rapporteur’s comments are important, because we need to have the proper data to hand if we are to clearly identify the needs of the sector of society that is most affected by trends in employment and unemployment—Māori. We need to develop proper education programmes to ensure workers are best able to take advantage of flexible working hours. The situation of Māori workers is important. Because many Māori in the workforce are employed in vulnerable, last-hired first-fired jobs, their right to request flexible working hours is very likely to go untested, for fear of losing their jobs. Having the proper information to hand, then, is very important, but this could become a problem given that this Government has decided to shelve the gathering of Māori data. Again, this is a matter of huge concern for Māori, and one about which Labour’s Māori MPs have been strangely silent.

The Māori Party is mindful of the greater whānau obligations of Māori employees. The fact that Māori are more likely to undertake voluntary work is an ever-growing reality of the increasing number of solo parent employees. The tension from balancing paid work with family responsibilities is a huge issue for everyone in Aotearoa, and at a time when pressures are increasing on whānau, a little flexibility has to be a great idea. As a parent and a grandfather who has raised his mokopuna for the last 11 years, I see heaps of benefits for flexibility in the workforce. As an employer, I have always operated on the basis that my staff members’ personal time is as valuable to me as their work time, and that if I can help to enhance their personal situation, the benefits will be felt in the workplace as well. My stories are anecdotal, of course, but the official research confirms that view. If we give families a break, everybody wins. There will be lower absentee rates, better morale, less staff turnover and recruitment costs, and, of course, that all translates into greater workplace productivity.

For all the technological advances of the last half-century, we do not, for some strange reason, seem to be working any less. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case—we are overworking. Overwork threatens our health. It leads to fatigue, and accidents and injuries, and it forces us to eat fast food and have frantic relationships. It means less time for each other, for our kids, for our whānau, and even for our elders. Overwork also reduces employment. Fewer people working longer hours reduces the number of workers needed, and it adds stress and burn-out to those who are working. With higher unemployment, employers feel comfortable about pushing back working conditions, and pushing down wages. So we are finding that the low paid are on a frenetic Ferris wheel—needing to work longer and longer hours just to earn enough to get by. Higher-paid people often feel trapped into working more hours than they want to, in order to keep pace with their own station in life.

The Māori Party congratulates the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on speaking out against this spiralling pattern of stress and burn-out, and on its campaign for work-life balance called Get a Life! Its national secretary, Carol Beaumont, recently said: “The Government must make sure that laws which set out the minimum code for workers’ pay and conditions take into account the need for balance between work and life.” A few years ago a poll conducted by the Center for a New American Dream showed that 60 percent of Americans felt too much pressure to work, and more than 80 percent wished they had more family time. More recently, Time magazine featured a New Jersey initiative called Ready, Set, Relax!, which was described by one local businessman as a citywide sanity check—to slow down and to persuade frazzled families to put down some speed bumps in their fast-paced lives. So this bill is consistent with positive working trends from all around the world.

In the same way that a Government has the authority to ensure proper working conditions, it also has the authority to empower workers to negotiate flexible working hours. Another intriguing question, of course, is how we would spend that time and energy if we had those hours. We might cancel something hectic in our calendar—maybe even change our children’s schedule, as well, to spend a bit of quality time with them. We might take the whānau out to lunch, switch off the TV, talk to one another, go and watch the kids play sport, or just go to the beach and enjoy the sun. It is all a question of how we choose to balance out our lives. This bill is a moment in time to say: “Stop, get a life, get ready to relax, take a nationwide sanity check, take back your time, and reclaim your life.” This is a good bill, and on behalf of all whānau in Aotearoa, Māori and non-Māori, we stand to support it wholeheartedly.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : Let me say from the outset that I fully support flexible working hours—where possible. I did not have the privilege of hearing the submissions and the discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish I had done so, so that today I would, from memory, be able to discuss some of what was heard there. But I have taken the time to read the opinions of a number of people, and the reports back. I commend the fact that we will have a year to look into whether this legislation will achieve what Green Party member Ms Kedgley intends it to achieve, but I have grave misgivings for what it might mean for New Zealand businesses, and for what it is saying about New Zealand families.

As I often like to do, I will start by looking at the history of this legislation. The Green Party member Ms Kedgley promotes the UK view that legislation is the way to achieve this flexibility and work-life balance. Members should make no mistake: this bill is largely about women, for it is women who will often want that flexibility to attend to their family duties. Women have come a very long way over the years in showing their value in the workplace, and in being valued in the workplace. They are valued for their skills, and their employers know it. Employers would be the first to say that they do not want their valuable employees to move on because they cannot find some form of balance in how they utilise their hours. In the last 4 years there has been an increase of more than 16 percent in women’s participation in the workplace. That suggests to me—and I think it may do to others—that that might have happened because the contemporary workplace is a good place to be and because it has attracted women back into it, which may well be because they have been able to achieve flexibility. I do not pretend that that will always be the case for everyone, but I am suggesting, from what I have read and heard, that it is the case in many, many situations.

The philosophy behind this bill is admirable. But, equally, there are significant potential fish-hooks aplenty. Family-friendly policies—

Darren Hughes: That’s why National will vote against it when it comes back.

JO GOODHEW: I hear on the other side of the House that National will vote against the bill, but I want to say that we are looking very positively towards the year of gathering information. We will not make our decisions today about how we will be voting in a year’s time; the member suggests, unkindly, that we will. We are, however, supporting this bill—

Darren Hughes: Will the member bet me $10? I’ll bet you $5!

JO GOODHEW: I’m not a betting woman. So the philosophy, as I have said, is admirable. Family-friendly policies sound great, and having work-life balance sounds great, as well.

But New Zealand businesses—and 95 percent of them are small businesses—are not the proverbial Father Christmas. They have to make their businesses pay; they have an investment to protect. I bring to members’ attention here today a number of implications of this bill for businesses. It is said that the bill will possibly create difficult hurdles for business, to the point where it might be unfair or impossible for some businesses to implement the legislation. In a comment in the Independent, Marlborough Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer, Tim Leslie, said that flexibility should not be a right but that it should be part of a negotiation of employee conditions. I agree wholeheartedly. Mr Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand says he has yet to see proof of the problem Ms Kedgley is trying to fix and, if it does exist, he says education is the better route. Of course, in the House this afternoon we have already heard support for education as an option for improving the number of workplaces that offer flexibility.

The bill is being deferred, and for good reason. It is so that officials can collect and collate reliable information on New Zealand workplace practices, for it seems clear that the select committee heard that many are offering that flexibility.

Mr O’Reilly also pointed out that maybe this family-friendly bill will exclude some who have family responsibilities towards elderly parents or sick spouses, and today Ms Kedgley has acknowledged that and said she would like to see the bill extended. But I worry that that might be the thin end of the wedge and that we will find, as in the paid parental leave legislation, that once everyone is included it will not represent what we had hoped. Everyone will have so much flexibility that we will put businesses out of business. I ask where the responsibility that New Zealanders have to look after family starts and ends. This Government, and clearly the Green Party too, would have us believe that it is the responsibility of businesses to put at risk their profitability, in order to assist employees to meet their responsibilities to family members. As a parent, I took on employment that meant I was able to meet my obligations as a parent, and I know I was lucky in that respect. But my various employers assisted by varying my hours where possible, because they were good employers—and possibly because they also wanted to keep me on. They did not need legislation to enforce their provision of flexible working hours where their circumstances of running the business allowed.

Other examples in my electorate of Aoraki abound. It is largely a rural service area of the country, and I have been approached by businesses that are concerned by this bill because they have some women—a small number only—who work in those businesses. They have offered those women what flexibility they can, but the reality is that the businesses operate between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the women in the businesses, should they ask for more flexibility, would certainly not to be able to answer customers’ calls after 5 o’clock at night, because those calls just do not occur—they do not happen after 5 o’clock at night. So employers will have to turn those requests down. Interesting reasons abound for the requests for flexibility, such as employees having too little time to spend with their families. Does that mean, perhaps, that after parents have had a busy day at home with their families and their children, businesses should crank up and operate at night to suit the needs of those parents? Perhaps I take that to the extreme.

The benefits to business of flexible working hours have been said to be a drop in staff turnover, retention of skills, a decrease in absenteeism, and an increase in job satisfaction. That is absolutely true; those are all benefits of flexible working hours. Those same benefits also have the potential to be monetary benefits for businesses, because they mean businesses keep their staff. So why would businesses not be flexible without having legislation to require that? Businesses are wary of further legislation and compliance costs, which is not surprising, because even just lately amendments to a number of Acts have increased business compliance costs: the Health and Safety in Employment Act, the Holidays Act, and the Employment Relations Act. Businesses are wary; they are very wary.

I found it interesting to read some of the opinions of Nikki Dines of Simpson Grierson’s employment law group, because she gave some insights into the potential for problems. While the rationale for the bill may be commendable—and I have already mentioned that—there are some serious issues with it both from a legal and economic perspective. The employer can refuse the application only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on one or more of the following grounds: inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff, inability to recruit additional staff, detrimental impact on quality, detrimental impact on performance, insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work, and planned structural changes. But it does not matter if there is a burden of additional costs on employers or any detrimental effect on their ability to meet customer demand. Where an employer fails to give proper consideration to flexible working requests, the employee may be awarded compensation, and we are told there is no cap on the level of compensation. That really is a potential worry.

This bill looks to increase compliance costs for employers significantly. It seems to be yet another proposal that could lead to uncertainty and increase costs for employers. But let me remind members again that I am in favour of flexible working hours for employees. I can tell members that that happens without legislation requiring it—but let us see. I ask members to wait for another year and see exactly what is collected and collated, for we will not decide today.

I have another example of a workplace, in which a colleague of mine tells me there is grave concern. It is a legal practice with 15 employees, eight of whom, by having young children, would qualify for the flexibility provisions. This legislation is a concern to them. I say in conclusion that I am hopeful we will actually get some sense out of this issue next year, and we will know how to vote then.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the consideration of the report on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. Like others, I want to thank Sue Kedgley for bringing the bill to Parliament and to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was indeed a committee where we had interesting and healthy debate on the bill.

This bill was supported in principle by many organisations and many submissioners, including family-friendly employers, union organisations, women’s organisations, professional women’s organisations, and others who are increasingly concerned about how we balance our work and family responsibilities. Balancing work and home life is a growing concern for both employers and workers. Improving that balance can help with employee recruitment and retention—as others have said—it can match people, who would not otherwise work, with particular jobs, and it benefits families and communities.

We have to face the fact that the world has changed. The simple facts are that there are now more women, more dual-income families, and more sole parents in the workforce, and that is amplifying the potential for conflict between work and family life. In addition, New Zealand has an ageing population so more of the workforce is likely to be involved in caring for elderly parents and whānau. Jobs have changed significantly over the past couple of decades. We have moved from a predominance of work in primary industries, to increased numbers of jobs in retail, hospitality, information technology, and finance. Over this period, there has been a growth in non-standard employment such as self-employment, contracting-out, and temporary and casual work.

The pattern of working hours has also changed. The trend has been away from the standard full-time working week of 40 hours a week, 8 hours a day between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., towards either underemployment—that is, where workers cannot get enough hours to make a living in one job so they work two or three jobs—or overwork, where workers are working more than 50 hours a week. Skill shortages exist in some sectors, and there is difficulty, as we know, in retaining skilled workers in many industries.

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

DARIEN FENTON: There is plenty of evidence that balancing work and family responsibilities is one of the significant pressures that New Zealand families are facing. In the report, Thirty Families – Work Hours by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, for example, work hours were a significant problem for workers, their families, and their communities. For many, the hours they were working were simply too long, and expectations had increased that additional hours would be contributed to the employer, without overtime pay. A significant issue for those working long hours was control over their hours. Many felt they had no say and just had to put up with it, regardless of their family circumstances.

We heard two views in the submissions. One was from some employers and employers’ organisations who felt they were being as flexible as possible, and some said that indeed providing any flexibility in terms of the proposed bill would be a significant impost on their business. The other view expressed was the real frustration workers are having in progressing the issue of balancing work and family responsibilities in their workplace. Although some employers have moved with the times, others deny that any move towards flexible working hours is necessary—or if they do agree, they do not want to have it legislated for. I do want to acknowledge here the many employers who have genuinely attempted to recognise that their employees are more than machines, that they come to work as whole people with families and communities behind them, and that they are not there just as robots to deliver for the business, but more often than not are working to make life better for their families and communities.

I have been a judge for the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust, which has been mentioned in this House in this debate, and its work and life awards for employers who have made innovative progress in their businesses towards implementing work-life balance policies. There are many good examples of that, but I noted during my time as a judge a distinct lack of entries from organisations that employ low-paid workers, manufacturing workers, workers doing shift work in the hospitality and care-giving industries, and, of course, those at the bottom of the heap—for example, cleaners. It became clear to me that organisations that compete for highly skilled staff, such as law firms and universities, could see the benefits of developing family-friendly policies. But often the cleaners, the kitchen workers, and the clerical workers who work in those same firms were excluded from those family-friendly policies. They applied only to those whose skills were in demand.

Many of the employers who submitted to us claimed to have flexible workplaces because they employ part-time and casual workers. I think they are a bit confused about what flexibility means, because they are talking about flexibility for the employer but the employees have no say over that flexibility.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Most of the people who work part-time want to be part-time.

DARIEN FENTON: That is simply not true. Participating in the select committee debate was an interesting experience, because Labour does support improving the work-life balance of workers in this country. But the question we grappled with was not whether employers were doing that anyway, as some submitters claimed, because that is not true. There is plenty of evidence that the number of employers who have actually implemented provisions like the ones proposed in the bill is not great. So the question we grappled with in the select committee was whether the legislation proposed could be practically implemented in its current form.

There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this. These include whether workers would have the right to revert to their original hours once their need for flexible hours was considered, and that is a considerable concern for many workers because flexible hours can be used as an opportunity to reduce hours, leaving them without any security in the future.

There was also the need to renegotiate the many collective agreements where unions have specifically sought to regulate hours to prevent casualisation, and Air New Zealand gave us the example of its 50 collective agreements that would require renegotiation with the unions involved. Many collective agreements have specific full-time hours spelt out, and unions have fought hard to hold on to those provisions against the increasing tide of part-time and casual work. We have already talked in this House about the exclusion of some groups, such as those that have the care and responsibility of older whānau. There was a very good submission from one group on the growing problems of an ageing population and the impact on work.

There was the difficulty of making this bill work in practice so that all workers could be treated fairly and it would not operate on a “first in, first served” basis. Consideration needs to be given to this because the workplaces that I am very familiar with jealously guard their rights to fairness in shift and hours allocation. Why is that? Because they are always competing for decent work, for full-time hours, and for a job that will feed their families. I also have an ongoing concern about the highly casualised industries. Their struggle is not for flexible hours but for secure hours and decent work. I know that was not within the ambit of this bill, but without significant protections it would be difficult to see how these workers could benefit, and indeed flexible hours tend to be something to be avoided for them.

The select committee did indeed stimulate a healthy and insightful debate, but there is more work to be done, and we welcome that. We want to be sure we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisages. Again, I want to thank Sue Kedgley for bringing the bill forward, and I look forward to considering this matter again within the year.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is very proud that our colleague Sue Kedgley’s bill has been treated so seriously by this House and by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and that further research will be done to make sure that the outcome of the bill is the best possible. I have been listening tonight to the National Party arguments from Wayne Mapp and Jo Goodhew, and they are not very convincing at all; in fact, they are a bit contradictory. They say that things are wonderful in the workplace, that everyone dialogues nicely, that employers dialogue with workers, and that everything is sorted out informally and people do not need anything else. But even if that were the case, why should those members be so frightened of a bill like this, which prescribes procedures? If their view is correct—that the procedures are unnecessary and everything is wonderful—they should not be threatened by the fallback to procedures that this bill provides in case things do not go well.

We all know that the whole raft of workplace law we have built up over the years, by both National-led Governments and Labour-led Governments, is for situations in the workplace where everything is not going well and where employers are not acting in the best interests of their workers. As Darien Fenton has pointed out, it depends a bit on the demand for one’s skills. If a person is a cleaner and there seem to be other people around who could take on that person’s job if that person does not do exactly what he or she is told, then the negotiation, the dialogue, does not seem to go on quite as well as it would if that person is well-skilled, those skills are in high demand, and the employer does not want to lose that person. There might then be a bit of flexibility as to one’s work hours.

So I think this bill is very important, and will be so for lower-paid workers and less-skilled workers. It will be even more important if we have higher unemployment. We have been quite lucky over the last year or two to have low unemployment, but if we get higher unemployment, then fewer employers, naturally, will be interested in having proper dialogue and flexibility in the workforce. But, actually, as has been pointed out by my colleague and others, it is more efficient for employers to have happy workers. If there is a flexible workforce arrangement, there is less absenteeism, which means that if workers have some important household duties or something to do that concerns their kids, they do not have to throw a sickie all of a sudden and put the employer out. It is all much more planned, and there are structures in place—replacement structures, etc.—so that it does not affect the industry so much. The workers are better workers because they are more motivated. They think they are being treated well and there is less turnover in the workforce.

As we all know, one of the major costs—and the National Party goes on and on about compliance costs—of any employer is selecting and training new labour. This will be reduced if we have happy workers. They might stay with an employer all their lives, if we treat them well under this bill. Employers would also keep the experience and skills that are so important to an efficient workplace.

It is important to point out, as other speakers have, that women tend to suffer more if such procedures as are outlined in this bill are not put in place. They have to scurry around, fitting their other household and childcare duties into a very difficult employment situation. The people whom Darien Fenton talked about—the lower-paid workers—often work very long hours, too. The figure quoted by Sue Kedgley was that a fifth of the workforce works 50 or more hours a week. It is very hard to pay proper attention to one’s family in that situation, and even harder if one does not have flexible work relationships. [Interruption] As my colleague Sue Kedgley just commented, MPs sometimes have difficulty in coping with their family responsibilities, and we should be particularly sensitive to others in the workforce who have similar problems. [] Peter Brown, who has just interjected, mentioned the cost argument—that somehow this legislation does not cover costs. This is very broad-brush legislation. Sure, it could be tightened up and be more prescriptive in the way that Peter Brown has suggested, but we wanted to put the framework in place at this point, and also get the support of the National Party.

I thought that by having such moderate legislation, surely the National Party would support it, along with New Zealand First. But even under the general prescriptions here, if a case goes to an employer and then the appeal system is brought into effect, surely the effect of what the employee is demanding of the employer would take into account the importance of that particular worker to the industry, etc. All the particulars will be taken into account as part of this process, which might reflect on the cost structure for the business. I do not think business people need to worry, at all.

Peter Brown said that the bill should include those who look after elderly parents as well as young children. Sue Kedgley stated at the time that she agrees. That is something we could extend into the bill as it goes along. Much of the discussion so far has been on the bill’s effect on workers—on their being happier and able to carry out their family duties, etc.—but I think we also have to look very closely at the kids. It does not do kids any favours when their parents work 50 or more hours a week and do not have the flexibility to look after their kids properly. A lot of kids become latchkey kids in this situation. It is not good for their development. They often get into trouble or do not do their homework. All kinds of things happen if parents do not have that flexibility. If the mother and the father are stressed, and the kids can see that they are stressed, it carries over to the kids too and inhibits their proper development. I think this bill will help to alleviate those problems, too.

Also, speaking as a male Green MP, having flexible work hours helps the balance between men and women who look after children. The hours apply to men and to women. There is an increasing tendency in society, although it has not gone terribly far yet, for house husbands to take over the care of the kids for a few years, and for men to play a greater role in the bringing up of their children. The arrangements in the bill will enable that flexibility to be perfected much more, and will lead to a more balanced development of children.

As I think a previous speaker pointed out, there are a lot of solo parents around now, and if they have jobs they find it particularly difficult to cater for their children and have flexibility too. Often, solo parents are not in full-time employment, or their employment shifts from time to time. They might be in full-time employment for a period and then not be employed full time, and having an arrangement such as under this bill whereby they can pay attention to their kids, even though they are solo parents, is very important. It will help to address the problem of casualisation that Darien Fenton mentioned. One reason why we have such a degree of part-time work—and some of it is legitimate part-time work, but some of it is forced part-time work or casualisation—is that parents do not have a flexible arrangement guaranteed by legislation and they have to go from part-time job to part-time job. This bill will help to address that.

If members have looked at the Green Party logo, they will see that it has the words “Quality of Life” under it. I think this bill will improve the quality of life for everyone—for male parents, for female parents, and for kids. Having a work-life balance is very important for the quality of life of all of us.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : Tēnā koutou. Ki te Whare e tū nei, ki a Papatūānuku kei waho, tēnā kōrua. Ki ngā rangatira o Aotearoa, tēnā koutou. Ki ngā hoa o te Pāremata tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

• [Greetings to you collectively. To the House standing here and to the Earth Mother outside, greetings to you two. To the chiefs of New Zealand collectively, greetings. To fellow parliamentarians, greetings, greetings, greetings to you and to us all.]

I rise to support the recommendation made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to set aside the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill for 1 year. The select committee has recommended to set it aside for 1 year, in order to examine its real advantages and disadvantages, and to do more research. I certainly wish to examine the advantages and disadvantages—particularly the advantages, given my background in business and my having employed many people over many years.

Before I continue, I make the comment that there is something we should ask about every bill that stands before this House at the moment, particularly given this Labour-led Government’s desire for economic transformation. We need to ask ourselves whether this bill will lift economic growth. Will it lift us up the OECD rankings? Will it increase wages for employees? Will it increase flexibility in working hours? Will it generally do that? Or will it reduce the flexibility needed to grow businesses and lift up our ranking in the OECD? Will it further increase Big Brother Government? Will it further increase bureaucracy? Will it further increase red tape? Those are the questions, both for and against the legislation, that we need to examine over the next year.

My personal opinion is that this type of legislation is unnecessary. I will talk members through its advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, let us examine the purpose of this bill. Its purpose is to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide employees with young, dependent children the statutory right to request part-time and flexible hours and a framework within which employees can negotiate reduced working hours. It has some key criteria that not many other speakers have alluded to tonight, but they are important none the less. I congratulate Sue Kedgley on some of those key criteria, because they will be important to business people if this legislation comes into force.

Firstly, the legislation can apply only if an employee has been with the same employer for 6 months. That is an important thing, because normally when people negotiate their first employment contract they negotiate flexibility in hours right there and then with their employers. It is important that there is some sort of time frame within which someone can go back to an employer and ask for a change in his or her working relationship.

Secondly, the employee has to have children under the age of 5, or children with a disability. Again, that is a key, important point. The request has to be made in writing, set out the work pattern, and explain how it could be made to work. That is a criterion that I am struggling with, because it will involve more discussion. My experience is that when an employee comes to me to ask for flexible hours, we reach that by discussion. Employers know how their businesses run, and they know what other people they need in their businesses to fill holes in employment. They also know the value of their employees concerned. I understand the need for the request for flexibility to be in writing, but I suggest that in good employment practice people will largely work together on the issue of flexible hours—as I believe they do now.

Thirdly, the employer must consider the application for flexible hours as soon as possible, and refuse it only when it cannot reasonably be accommodated under prescribed set conditions. It is interesting that we talked about some of the conditions that have been raised, which vary from business to business—the type of environment people are in. Some businesses very much depend on a combination of the skill of employees—as in the legal profession—plus the time frames within which they need to get jobs done. It is not easy to replace some employees, particularly when big financial jobs are coming through. If a lawyer has a particular skill in an area and that lawyer is negotiating a contract—and there are deadlines in multimillion-dollar contracts—those sorts of things cannot deal with the inflexibility of some legislation. Negotiation is required between employer and employee. Those things are important.

Lastly, employees have a right of appeal; that is another part of the legislation. Those are the criteria that I believe are reasonable, but I now want to examine the arguments both for and against the bill.

Firstly, I turn to the arguments for the bill, and a number of those arguments have been made tonight. In recent surveys a majority of employees said that they were working longer hours than previously, that they were feeling under constant stress, that their lives were out of balance, and that they were under significant pressure. I say that that is very much the case with many employers in this country, as well. I do not think there is any difference between employees and employers.

Secondly, some employees who have children simply give up the struggle and drop out of the labour market because they cannot find ways to combine paid work and the demands of looking after young children. Well, that will happen anyway, regardless of flexible hours. Some men and some women simply cannot deal with the stress of working even flexible hours. I think we need to understand that point, too.

The third point is that a number of countries, particularly OECD countries like Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, all provide employees with a legal right to request more flexible working arrangements or to reduce their working hours. There are a number of arguments for that.

Arguments against the bill are that it is simply more bureaucracy, more legislation, and more Big Brother Government prescription—employers are in business, so employees will do this! I think that is where one of the problems lies in this legislation. There is more Government involvement in the lives of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses. I often hear it said across the floor: “Oh, why is there all that bureaucracy? Why is there all that red tape?”. Well, this is more bureaucracy in the making.

There are 322,519 small businesses out there, which employ 100 people or fewer. Those businesses account for nearly 99 percent of the employees in this country. I suggest to members that by far the majority of those small-business owners know the value of the employee-employer relationship. The fact of the matter is that a small business with one or two people cannot grow its business without having a positive relationship with its employees, and without some form of flexible working arrangements in place. I believe that an argument against the bill is that by far the majority of small to medium sized enterprises treat their employees extremely well, and form relationships with those employees from day one. Many employees are part of the business and treat it as their own, as well, which is fantastic.

Despite that, the problem I have is that there has always been the insinuation from the Government, and in fact sometimes from the Greens as well, that employers are bad, that they are evil, and that they do not care for their staff, for the families of their staff, or for the welfare of their staff. I have to say quite simply, having been an employer of many years standing, that that is not true. Numerous small businesses out there lend money to their employees when they get into strife, give employees additional holidays over and above the legislative requirement, give wages in advance, and allow staff leave to attend their kids’ swimming sports and prize-givings and go on their kids’ school camps. Those events are all important parts of employees’ lives, and of employers’ lives too. Flexibility in employment arrangements happens in hundreds of thousands of New Zealand businesses right now. Believe it or not, businesses do provide flexible working hours as we speak.

Women are a key part of this workforce. As my colleague Jo Goodhew said earlier, there has been a 16 percent increase in the number of women in the workforce in the last 4 years. Having employed many, many women in my lifetime, I know they are fantastic employees. They are dedicated and they want to get ahead. Any employer who cannot form a positive relationship with the women in his or her workforce is on a hiding to nothing. Employers have to form positive relationships and provide opportunities to have an ongoing relationship with their staff. To sum up, I say that we support the review of the legislation over the next year.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is my pleasure to rise in support of the interim report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. Along with my colleagues I also thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward for our consideration. It comes in the context that we in this country have some of the longest hours worked in the OECD. Also, for me, it comes in the context of having in my maiden speech labelled work-life balance as one of the things that I had at the forefront of my mind when coming into Parliament. I really do believe that work-life balance is one of the most important things we face in this country. It is something we must make some progress on.

It is within that context that I was very pleased to be able to participate in the discussion in our select committee on this bill and to hear from the many submitters who came forward. I thank the submitters, because obviously much thought had gone into the submissions that were received by our select committee.

It was interesting to see what I perceived as quite a split coming forward from the submissions we received. It was an interesting split because I perceived that it was business versus the rest of the community. That was very much the nature of the submissions received on this bill. The rest of the community were unions, women’s groups, lawyers and their firms, nurses, supermarket workers, and a whole range of other organisations that came forward to say that they really do believe there is a need for regulation in this area, because of their past experiences.

It came down to a debate in the select committee about education versus regulation. But I want to stress that it is not quite as simple as that. Of course, if we were engaged in regulation in this area, we would also need a massive education campaign to sit alongside that. I think that is one of the fundamental issues that everyone in the select committee could agree on—that there is a need for education on what the possibilities are, what the opportunities are, and what the benefits are. Also, there is a need for education for working people so that they feel they have the courage and the information to go forward and make a request of their employer for flexible working hours.

One of the most powerful submissions for me personally came from the Federation of Business and Professional Women. That was one of the submissions that, to me, went outside the feeling of business versus the rest of the community that I was getting.

Dr Wayne Mapp: You mean hard-line unionists.

SUE MORONEY: And I mean women’s groups, and lawyers, and nurses, and supermarket workers, and the list goes on. The member knows the list of submitters as well as I do. Business was the only group that had any concerns to raise about this bill.

The Federation of Business and Professional Women submission was extremely interesting to me, from this perspective. It was an extremely powerful submission. The group’s submitter talked in her oral submission about having interviewed a woman just the previous week for a cleaning job. That is what she did outside of her role of representing business and professional women. She was interviewing this woman who was going for a cleaning job, who in fact was a very successful salesperson. She asked this woman why on earth she was applying for the job as she was over-qualified—if there is such a thing—for it. The woman replied that it was because of the hours and the flexibility that they would offer her. She said she could not use her skills as a salesperson and get that flexibility. This happened just the week before the representative came to see our select committee. I thought it was very powerful example of the sort of wastage—

Dr Wayne Mapp: You believe that was true?

SUE MORONEY: Yes, I do believe it was true, because a submitter told us that. I believe it was true.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Oh, so it must be true.

SUE MORONEY: I believe the submission made by the Federation of Business and Professional Women—I sincerely do. That was an example of the type of wastage going on in our economy because of not using people’s skills properly when we do not have that flexibility in our workplaces.

It is something that is quite personal for me as well, because, as a working woman with young children, I rely, and my family relies, very heavily on flexibility in my husband’s working arrangements for our situation to actually work. So I fully understand what it means for families. In that context I add that this is not just an issue for women—it is an issue for families and for the men in those families.

The new work-life balance that is being demanded is sought by people. I share the concerns raised by my colleague Mark Gosche earlier. I am concerned at hearing some sort of feigned outcry from the community about 24-hour childcare when that is what our economy requires. It is no big secret; it should not be shock and horror. This is the type of environment in which we all live and thrive, and we need the support services to go with that. As a working mother I reiterate that flexible working hours are a key to our lives.

Another issue that came up in the discussion with the select committee was the idea that somehow the market would just sort this out. I want to talk about that a bit because I think we need to face up to the myth that lies behind it. We went through a very bad experiment in the 1990s when the market was going to fix all sorts of things—but it never did. Apprenticeship schemes, etc., all went by the by. I think we really need to front up to the discussion about whether the market will provide. My colleague Darien Fenton alluded to this and talked about her real-life experience in this area. If one works in an area that is deemed to be low status—and I very carefully say “deemed” to be a low-status area rather than “is” a low-status area—then one’s ability to get one’s employer to agree to flexible working hours is much more limited than it is for someone in a high-status job. That is what we are left with if we leave it up to the market. The market makes a call on low-status and high-status jobs, so we have to face up to that reality.

It was within that context that I was therefore quite surprised to hear that many of the submissions made to the select committee were from women in high-status, high-paid jobs. Women lawyers came along to our select committee and said that they do not have the sort of flexibility in their work that they need to make their working lives and their family lives work for them. Nurses and teachers also came along to the select committee. These are professional women who understand exactly how they could work. They could describe to our select committee exactly how, within their work, which they understood very well, they could work, but they could not get agreement to that.

We have this argument about regulation versus education, and we have 12 months to have a good look at it and see which way it falls. I must note that the bill has stimulated healthy debate at the select committee. However, we do have agreement on some key fundamental points. The need for flexible working hours is agreed. Hallelujah, we have got there! So we agree that it needs to happen, but we need to have more consideration of the mechanism. A fear expressed by many of the submitters who came forward to us was that they would have to do something they could not possibly do, and I think some members opposite are reflecting that. They think that this bill forces employers to do something they cannot possibly do. However, I note that under this bill an employer can turn down an application when it cannot be reasonably accommodated on one or more of the following grounds: “(i) inability to re-organise work among existing staff: (ii) inability to recruit additional staff: (iii) detrimental impact on quality: (iv) detrimental impact on performance: (v) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; and (vi) planned structural changes.” So members opposite would find, if they took the time to read the context of the bill, that the sorts of fears they have raised about it are unfounded.

I look forward to this bill coming back so that we can have a look at what has happened in the previous 12 months. However, while I am on my feet I will take the opportunity to do a bit of myth-busting. Some members opposite have taken the opportunity to talk about flexible working hours being a business compliance cost. I feel very sad that the idea of flexible working hours is viewed by the Opposition as being a business compliance cost. I also want to bust the myth that somehow New Zealand has a high level of business compliance costs, because that is clearly not true. Why does this country keep topping the reports on ease of business in OECD countries?

PANSY WONG (National) : One is not surprised that this bill is promoted by the Green Party member. This bill, according to the Green Party member, is about flexible working hours. It is so indicative of the Labour and Green Party members, who have a concept that to cater for flexible working hours we must have an inflexible mechanism to enforce it. They simply cannot equate flexibility with letting individuals work out a solution that is flexible enough for both parties. They have never really learnt to trust employers and employees in the 21st century to work out a mechanism that is flexible for both parties.

Sue Moroney started her speech by saying that as a working mother she understands the need for flexible working hours. My challenge to the Labour member is, No. 1, whether we are looking at extending these flexible working hours to members of Parliament who have dependent or disabled children so that they will come to Parliament to participate in the debating chamber or at select committees only when it is flexible for those members; and, No. 2, will the Labour Government start giving instructions to the Parliamentary Service that cleaners who come in to tidy up the parliamentary complex will be able to come at hours that are flexible—that are convenient to the cleaning contractors? Until the Government and Green Party members are able to practise what they lecture, I once again caution them against putting in a very inflexible framework for, largely, the small businesses of New Zealand.

Labour members ask what the big deal is, as employers can turn down a request from employees for flexible working hours. But that is the point. Small-business proprietors are doing that right now. Of course staff can make requests. When 86 percent of businesses in New Zealand are classified as small businesses, which means they employ only five employees or fewer, no one can tell us that the boss and the employees do not talk to one another.

Any successful business proprietors can tell the public that the only way their business can be successful is to have good staff working for them, and to have the staff and the proprietor working as a team. I am talking about busting the myth, perpetually believed by Labour and the Greens, that all employers are there to abuse staff, and not to care about employees’ welfare. I find it very strange when Labour members say that employees go to work because they want to take home money to support their families; those members never mention that employees go to work because they want to be part of a team to grow a successful business. On the other hand, Labour members always declare that the reasons people go into business is not because those people want to take a risk and improve their own economic situation, but that their first objective is to provide employment.

I can tell members that the motivation for any people to go into business is actually the same as the motivation for workers—to better their individual position. But employers also understand that for business to be successful they must look after their employees. It is only a tiny minority of short-sighted employers who believe they do not have to look after their staff. So why should we support a bill that sends another signal that employers are somehow not to be trusted? We are in the 21st century where people do know their choices and do make them.

I would like to take issue with some of the examples that were offered by the previous speaker. My friend was a very successful partner in a medium-sized law practice, and, yes, she decided that the structure of the practice did not really suit her. There was no big hassle, and she started her own legal practice. So individuals in that position, with a skill base, do make choices and know the consequences—the advantages and disadvantages—of being part of a larger entity or of starting their own business. They do not need legislation that requests them to put a formal proposal to their employers.

Can members imagine they are corner dairy proprietors, and suddenly one of their part-time staff has come in and put in a formal request to work, maybe on Mondays and Wednesdays. The only means by which they can be turned down is for the proprietor to come back with a business case, with some sort of spreadsheet, and then, after negotiations with other employees, to ask whether a case can be made, formally to turn down the proposal. That is nonsense. Flexibility for one employee may mean imposing inflexibility on another employee. What happens when one of the five employees in an entity wants some sort of flexibility to suit his or her own work and life situation? What does that mean for the other employees in the same entity? I say that in this modern world most people in those situations have come to a realisation that they can help each other out. Six people in an entity can talk to each other, and manage to do that.

The National Party is supporting this interim report, but I personally think we should encourage the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to take as long as it likes to conduct proper surveys. If this bill does not get reported back to Parliament, I do not think it will be a bad thing. I think a lot of modern enterprises and small-business entrepreneurs of New Zealand would benefit from a Parliament that resists the temptation to impose legislation on them at every possible moment. So I ask the Green member to reflect, and send out some messages to say that she does treat individuals equally and that she does not hold on to the old belief of “us versus them”. I certainly see in most businesses that proprietors know that having a good team of staff is the ingredient for success in business.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sue Kedgley, is there a matter you wish to raise?

SUE KEDGLEY: I wish to respond very briefly to some of the comments that have been made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

SUE KEDGLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought it was an unlimited debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. There is no right of reply as such, but, of course, you may seek leave.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to respond very, very briefly to some of the comments that have been made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

SUE KEDGLEY: I thank members for giving me leave to speak very briefly. I know there are some other very important members’ bills that we are keen to debate.

I want to thank members who have participated in the debate. I particularly thank Chris Tremain, Darien Fenton, Sue Moroney, Mark Gosche, and Hone Harawira for their thoughtful contributions. I believe that in our heart of hearts we all know that the need for flexible working hours is a hugely important issue. In our heart of hearts we know that the “work, work, work” culture, with its excessively long working-hours, that we have here in New Zealand—it is well documented—is causing incredible stress and is probably partly responsible for the levels of violence and many other things in our society.

It is interesting that the National Party is happy to put more and more people in jail and to build more prisons, but not to do something as simple as support a very modest piece of legislation—one of the least prescriptive pieces of legislation ever to come before this Parliament—to ensure that people with children have a right to request flexible working hours and to reduce the stress in their lives. Hone Harawira spoke eloquently of the “work, work, work” stresses and what that is doing to families in New Zealand.

So I think that in our heart of hearts we know this is a huge social issue. We know we need to do something about it, but what is needed is political will. The problem is that particularly the major political parties in this House hate to do anything to get offside with business, so they are terrified to introduce legislation that some businesses oppose. In fact, the odd thing is that businesses in England, where this legislation has been introduced, have overwhelmingly supported it. It is quite extraordinary that National members keep going on about Big Brother, bureaucracy, dictating legislation, and so on and so forth, as though this is something that has to be imposed on employers.

I remind members again of some of the surveys that have found overwhelming support by businesses in the United Kingdom for this legislation. In the 2 years the UK has had the legislation it has been found that it has not resulted in increased compliance costs. I have mentioned that. There has been no increase in compliance costs in the United Kingdom. Members can fly off on their next Speaker’s tour and see for themselves, but they will not find that there have been increased compliance costs in the United Kingdom. Nor have people in the UK found any problems with this right. In fact, they found huge benefits for employers. I will give members a couple of points from the surveys: managers of flexible workers rated them as out-performing their traditional full-time colleagues; employers who offer flexibility achieve a rate of more than 90 percent of women returning from maternity leave; 90 percent of employers with flexible working practices think they are cost-effective; 39 percent say that the performance of people with flexible working practices outstrips that of their competitors; there is increased goodwill, increased productivity, lower turnover rates, reductions in staff sickness—shall I go on and on? Where is the problem for business?

The point is that businesses in the United Kingdom went on and on, as have some of the businesses here, saying: “Oh no, we hate this legislation. It will result in increased compliance costs.” In fact, it has done no such thing. What it has done is increase by 20 percent the uptake in flexible working practices in the United Kingdom. More than a million employees have made the request to work flexibly, and in 90 percent of cases they have been accommodated and it has worked out well. Some Opposition members have gone on and on, asking what would happen with this and what would happen with that. Well, they can turn the request down—it is in the legislation.

Employers have five grounds on which they can turn down a request, and I have already said that I am happy to expand those grounds. I am happy to have another criterion—that of increased compliance costs—for turning down a request. Do members know why I am so happy? Because in the UK there has never been—I think it happened in 1 percent of cases—any grounds for turning a request down. But if members want to put that in the legislation, they can go for it. There is no problem for businesses; it is a win-win. The UK Minister said it has been an outstanding success and it has provided a safety net of legislation.

One would think that this family-friendly piece of legislation would get cross-party support, in particular from those parties that say they are family-friendly and want to support families. One would have thought that this minimal, tiny, little bit—the right to request flexible working hours if one had children—would be supported especially by members of the National Party, and I think they would if they read the research and realised the overwhelming benefits.

My final point is that yes, of course, I agree with New Zealand First and with Mark Gosche that we should extend it to all people who are looking after others—for example, those who have elderly dependants—and ideally we would like to extend it to employees in general. We are very happy to make amendments, as Darien Fenton mentioned, to deal with some of the issues that were raised during the select committee process.

• Motion agreed to.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : In the brief 3½ minutes that I have, I would like to finish my speech about the Residential Tenancies (Damage Insurance) Amendment Bill. The aim of the bill is to protect tenants against personal liability for damage caused to a premise when they played no part in causing it.

Just quickly before I get into that, I want to look at the current relationship that exists between landlords and tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. It is a contract at common law. There are a couple of things here that cover both the landlord’s responsibilities and the tenant’s responsibilities. The landlord’s responsibility is, firstly, to provide and maintain the premise in a reasonable condition. Secondly, the landlord is to allow the tenant quiet enjoyment of the premises. Those are a couple of the landlord’s responsibilities. Let us look at some of the tenant’s responsibilities. They are to pay the rent on time, to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and to notify the landlord as soon as any repairs are needed. The most important point here, though, is that one cannot damage or permit damage to be done to the premises, one must inform the landlord of any damage, and, lastly, one must leave the property clean and tidy, and clear of rubbish and possessions, at the end of the tenancy.

In my opinion the accountability is clear there. If the tenant damages the property, or if the tenant brings friends on to the property who damage the property, the accountability is clear. The law sends the right message. If there is a positive relationship and the tenant damages the property, he or she is responsible for fixing it and putting it right—that person is responsible as the tenant. If we look at what this legislation seeks to do, we see it seeks to protect a tenant against personal liability for major damage, to take away any responsibility from the tenant, and to avoid the tenant coming up with payment for any damage that he or she played no part in causing.

I will just give members a quick example of something that happened over the adjournment. I was called to a property in Hastings Street in Napier. The neighbour, in fact, called me to view a tenanted property. We walked up there. There were plates strewn across the road and rubbish all outside the place. The front door had been smashed in. We found out what had happened. The tenant had vacated the property and left two friends in the property with their small child. It was the friends who were responsible for the damage that had taken place in that property. The new law would protect the tenant against personal liability for any major damage that had been caused by his or her friends—a premise that is absolutely crazy. We have a situation where the damage has been caused by the act of the tenant who has brought his or her friends in, and now we are looking to pass legislation that takes any responsibility for that away from the tenant.

I personally think that is crazy. The poor landlord is now faced with proving the extent of the damage and the amount of it. The landlord has to prove who is responsible for the damage—

Kate Wilkinson: He is not even there.

CHRIS TREMAIN: He is not even there; it is absolutely crazy. We will now force landlords to take out tenant insurance. Whom will that be passed on to? Probably to the tenant, resulting in an increase in rent. Lastly, it sends absolutely the wrong message to tenants. It tells them not to worry about the property any more, because if they bring their friends on to the property and the friends damage it, well c’est la vie.

I am totally against this legislation; so is the National Party.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party I welcome the introduction of this bill to Parliament. We will be voting for it, and I hope sufficient other parties will do likewise so that it can proceed to select committee for deeper consideration. I also congratulate Maryan Street on getting a useful member’s bill like this into the House so early in her parliamentary career. I hope it succeeds, whether as a bill in its own right or as part of the broader revamping of the Residential Tenancies Act, which I hope will happen soon. I just hope that Ms Street’s bill does not share the fate of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill that deals with boarding houses, which sank into the mire of parliamentary process in the Social Services Committee and has never been seen again since it came out of that committee.

The Green Party supports this bill from a fundamental belief that New Zealanders deserve secure and affordable long-term rental accommodation as a valid housing option, and that both tenants and landlords deserve to be treated fairly by the State and by each other. However, we ought to accept that residential tenants are, on the whole, an economically and socially vulnerable sector. Landlords, with admitted exceptions, and insurance companies tend to have considerably more economic power than tenants.

Over the years there have been a number of cases in the tenancy tribunal that have resulted in decisions regarding damage to a landlord’s property that have been blatantly unfair to tenants. For example, one of the earliest was tenancy tribunal decision No. 33/87. In that case, when damage was caused by subtenants the chief tenant was found liable by the tribunal, despite having no responsibility whatsoever for the damage caused. Cases of this nature culminated in a District Court appeal from the tenancy tribunal in September 2002, in which Judge MacAskill in the Dunedin District Court specifically suggested legislative change as a mechanism to address what is an obvious injustice in the law. I commend Maryan Street for taking up Judge MacAskill’s observations about the inadequacy of the law in this area and for taking the opportunity of using the member’s bill process to rectify what is a clear inequity.

The Green Party believes that the principle behind this bill is totally fair. Insurance cover should be extended to include the interests of tenants, not just those of landlords, and tenants should be covered for all situations except damage that they have intentionally caused themselves. One tenant should not be required to pay compensation for damage caused by another for whom they have no responsibility, as can currently occur. Landlords should be required to insure against damage caused to their property by tenants or their subtenants or visitors.

This bill does not impose any additional costs on landlords. As I hope members will realise—and, indeed, I have heard some of the National Party members say this—the costs of insuring against tenant liability for damage can be passed on to the tenant by means of rent. Nothing in this bill will stop that from happening. It will not necessarily be an extra cost for the landlord.

What this legislation proposes is an exemption from the insurance covering tenant liability when damage has been caused intentionally by a tenant. That is simply reasonable and is consistent with other legislative provisions, such as the recovery of a debt incurred as a result of fraud, which is treated differently in law from the recovery of a normal civil debt.

However, we do have some reservations in the area of the limitation of this provision to intentional damage. What if, for example, damage has been caused unintentionally but by an unlawful act, such as a tenant operating a P lab that explodes in the property, or through a grossly negligent act such as a drunk tenant smoking in bed and passing out and fire taking hold? Should the landlord’s insurance company bear the brunt of the cost of damage caused by such unlawful or grossly negligent acts? These are matters for the Social Services Committee to consider, but I do note that we have some concerns at this stage about this particular aspect of the bill. However, I am sure they can be sorted out.

There is no question that, overall, the bill is sound in principle. It will work to rectify a longstanding injustice, and the Green Party welcomes its introduction. I look forward to what I hope will be a substantial consideration of it by our select committee shortly.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : What is said in the whare, or in this case what is said by members of Parliament, is heard by the tāhuhu, who hear everything that has been said, everything that has gone before us, and the words of those who are gathered here today. So housing matters have always been of importance to Māori, whether as owners, tenants, insurance agents, or inhabitants.

The current housing profile for Māori is, unfortunately, not a very pretty picture. Despite the fact that home ownership is a strong aspiration for Māori people, such a desire is frequently not translated into reality. We are three times more likely to live in rental accommodation than New Zealand Europeans. Currently, 59.7 percent of Māori people live in households that pay rent, compared with 21.6 percent of non-Māori. Factors such as higher levels of unemployment, lower personal incomes, strong urbanisation, and concentration in high-cost housing markets like Auckland have all contributed to the disparities that are evident between Māori and non-Māori in the housing market. Other factors, such as institutional racism, may account for differences in housing allocation.

In looking at this bill, we must be guided by the high rental environment that tangata whenua inhabit. The Māori Party will support this bill going to a select committee in order to enable the large number of Māori who are renting, boarding, and flatting as tenants to be able to have a say. We seek every opportunity for people to participate and for their voices to be heard.

We are, however, also mindful of the numbers of Māori who are involved in the housing sector as landlords, investors, and owners. We are aware of key housing networks such as Te Tai Tonga Housing Forum, led by Rakiihia Tau and Tiopira Hape Rauna, who would have considerable experience to contribute to this debate about the universal goal of achieving quality, affordable housing with safe and secure homes. These people must have a say, as well as the tenants.

We understand the purpose of the bill as being to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in order to protect tenants against personal liability for major damage caused to premises that they play no part in causing. The fundamental question, however, must be why we should automatically assume that landlords should therefore be liable for damage caused to premises that they also have no part in causing. The Māori Party is keen to encourage further discussion on the concept of collective responsibility and ownership, and by this we mean the capacity to care for one another. Putting it simply, who is more likely to know about the damage caused to premises: the landlord, who may not even live in the same town, or the tenant in the next room? We must restore the sense of responsibility as individuals and collectives—as a whānau or a group of tenants in a single property who all sit around the same television at night, who contribute to the same food kitty, and who collectively pay the rent. Why could not these same people also pay to protect themselves? That is the question. Although we appreciate that nothing in the bill will prevent landlords from passing on the cost of additional premiums to tenants as part of the rent, could we not see this as an educational process for tenants, particularly our young people, about the value of insurance and of taking responsibility for one’s property and other people’s property?

The final issue that we seek further ideas on in the select committee is the low insurance coverage for Māori in the housing sector. If there is any doubt of this, one need only look at the nature of the crisis response required after the freak damage created by the floods, earthquakes, and storms of the last few years, such as, in my electorate, the Rangitīkei and Manawatū floods, the East Coast floods, and the destruction that ravaged through the Bay of Plenty. Indeed, one report in 2004 stated that an incredible 111 of the 141 homes in Whakatāne that were deemed uninhabitable did not have contents insurance.

Those are but some of the issues that we hope can be raised in the ongoing debate around this bill. The provision of quality, affordable housing, particularly for low-income families, is a significant priority focus for the Māori Party. If this bill can do anything for these families, particularly the 63,000 Māori families who have been cut out of the Working for Families package, then we will be eager to hear about it. We will support this bill going to select committee to ensure that Māori views are able to be heard, and we look forward to that process.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : I thank the members for their prior contributions. I think they have all been valuable. I acknowledge Maryan Street for bringing this bill forward. I also thank a constituent of mine when I was the MP for Otago, Warwick Goldsmith, who is a lawyer in Queenstown and who is the source of this bill originally. He wrote to me as a constituent, and as a lawyer, reporting a commentary on the Harrison v decision, whereby, as a prior speaker mentioned, the judge concluded in his comments that: “The outcome of this proceeding, though in accordance with the law, is unjust.” I think that is the essence of the issue we are dealing with today.

Is it just when there is a joint tenancy between tenants to enforce liability on the part of one of the tenants if the place burns down? The present position is that the landlord can, and generally does, insure the property, but when the property burns down the landlord’s insurerFR can exercise a right of subrogation and stand in the shoes of the insured and do what the landlord could do if the landlord was not insured. So the insurance company can effectively force the landlord—who might not want to do anything against the tenant, and might think it is quite an unjust outcome—to sue the tenant to recover the losses that may not have been caused by that tenant.

I think that is unfair, and I contrast the position with a family that occupies their own home. The family might occupy their own home and insure it. Their mother might be living with them and it might be the mother’s negligence in leaving the towel next to the heater that causes the fire, but one does not hear in that situation of the insurer exercising rights of subrogation to sue the mother, or the child, or the wife, or the husband who caused the fire.

The insurance premium, of course, is not much different in either situation, yet in the situation of the non - owner-occupied property, the insurer has the opportunity to have, and does exercise, rights of subrogation that would not occur in an owner-occupied situation. Having said that, I do acknowledge that there is something in some of the statements made by Tariana Turia and by the National Party. They suggest we need to take care that we do not cause unnecessary problems in respect of minor damage to premises where perhaps it is appropriate that all tenants share the obligation to make good damage caused by a co-tenant, because they may be able to influence that damage not happening if they have some level of responsibility. I am not sure where the line should be drawn there, and I think it is something that the select committee should look at.

What I am clear on is that it is not right in the case of fire that the major risk being insured against by the landlord does not also cover the interests of the tenant. That could be achieved for so small an extra cost and the full amount of that extra cost could be passed on to the tenant. So I think this is a good bill.

Finally, I will respond to one thing Sue Bradford said. She gave the example of someone falling asleep in bed while smoking and thus causing a fire. She thought that person should perhaps be made liable, but I do not think that person should be. I think the same situation should apply to that person as a tenant as would apply if that person was an owner-occupier, or the mother or child of the owner-occupier, if they were to do the same thing.

I think this is a good bill and that there is a need to look at the issue of minor damage. I suggest that this bill should be limited to matters of damage caused by fire so as to avoid the large risk that could cause, perhaps, a $100,000 liability, but those are matters of detail that the select committee can report to the House. I support the bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : Firstly, I would like to offer my congratulations to Maryan Street on having had her bill drawn from the ballot. I know from my experience in the last Parliament that it is always good to have one’s bills drawn. I had a couple drawn in the last Parliament, one of which, I might mention, is an important constitutional bill to do with property rights. We are now just a few days away from the anniversary of the first reading of that bill, and submissions have yet to be heard by the select committee, so it could be a very long process.

This bill raises a very interesting issue. I am a landlord and I insure the property that I let for my interest in it, which is the replacement value of the property itself and also the value of those contents inside the property that are my property rather than the tenants’ property. Of course, I expect the tenants to insure their own goods inside the house, be they personal clothing, furniture, or whatever. I do that as a landlord because I want to protect my property in the event of it being accidentally destroyed by fire, earthquake, flood, or whatever.

This bill raises a new issue in respect of damage done to a property by a person who has only a peripheral, if you like, relationship with another joint tenant and who is not actually involved in any shape or form with the cause of the destruction of the property or its damage. For that reason I think it is good for this bill to go to a select committee, and United Future will be supporting it going to a select committee. Like the Hon David Parker, who has just resumed his seat, we support this bill. By the way, I would like to publicly congratulate David on his reinstatement to his various portfolios, and I wish him well in those endeavours in the future. I have not had a chance to offer my congratulations to him personally because he was talking with the media at the time. I believe that the Hon David Parker has a lot to offer this country and this Parliament.

United Future will support this bill going to a select committee, and I hope that it will look carefully at the matters raised in relation to physical damage caused to a property. Under a normal tenant-landlord agreement, that sort of damage should result in the tenant being expelled from the property. It would bring the tenancy itself to an end, in any event, under normal contractual arrangements, and the landlord is free to pursue remedies against the tenant for that damage. This bill is about insurance. I think we need to keep those two things in mind and not mix them up—as I believe a couple of earlier speakers have done.

With those few remarks I am happy to signal that United Future will vote to send this bill to the select committee.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : In my right of reply I want to raise a couple of points, particularly with regard to some of the speeches and media comments that have been made recently around this bill, which have completely got the wrong end of the stick. I thank the member who has just resumed his seat for drawing attention to one of those confusions that has been presented in the public domain.

First of all, I say that this bill in no way diminishes the responsibility of tenants that exists anyway under the Residential Tenancies Act. Tenants have responsibilities. Under section 40(2)(a) of that Act, they shall not “Intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises;”. Further to the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker made a moment ago, I want to describe how personal responsibility as a tenant under the Residential Tenancies Act fits with the intention of this bill.

This bill is really about insurance—as Gordon Copeland has just said—and insurance companies know their business. It goes like this: as homeowners, we might pay insurance to cover damage done to our property. Landlords, as I am advised by representatives of the insurance industry, already pay a loading of some 30 percent on top of what ordinary homeowners, who live in the houses they are insuring, would pay by way of premiums. So landlords already pay a 30 percent loading on top of an ordinary homeowner’s insurance. If I burn down my house, which I own and insure accordingly, the insurance company does not come after me to recover costs. If, however, I am a tenant and I burn down the property I am renting, then the insurance company, through its powers of subrogation, is able to come after me to recover costs.

That is the thing that Judge MacAskill stated was patently unfair in the Dunedin case. I cite that case, because it was revisited in a brief item on Television One last night. The mother of the young man interviewed in that programme, who is now overseas, said that he was her son and that she had contacted me when she heard that this bill was in the offing. She said that her son was a second-year university student and he did not have sufficient belongings to have a household contents insurance policy. That situation is typical of many students, and of many people who are low-income earners or beneficiaries and who would have few belongings to insure. For a period of 4 years he was pursued by the insurance company through the District Court and the High Court, and finally he had a debt of $67,000 plus interest to pay to the insurance company. He was absent from the house at the time the damage was caused.

This bill would simply put tenants on the same footing as homeowners. Why should insurance companies get it both ways? They get an additional loading from the landlord on premiums for properties they own and properties they rent out. If insurance companies are then to go after tenants for the recovery of costs, they are getting it both ways. That is not fair.

The other point I need to stress is that in my consultation with insurance representatives there has been an assessment to say that were there ever to be any increases to insurance premiums as a result of this bill—and that is by no means an instance of cause and effect—then the increase is likely to be closer to $10 per annum than it is to $100 per annum. So I suggest that if insurance companies seek to increase premiums, they are simply using this bill as an excuse to do so. Insurance companies should operate for tenants in the same way as they operate for other customers of their policies.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I move, That the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It gives me great pleasure to speak to the first reading of this bill, and at the appropriate time I intend to move that it be considered by the Health Committee. I say to my colleagues that there are many examples of laws passed in the House that improve outdated legislation, make the lives of New Zealanders easier, or make the work of Government more efficient. But bills that can claim to improve the quality of life or save the lives of New Zealanders are few and far between. This bill is one of them. I would like to acknowledge Andy Tookey, who has lobbied for change for over 4 years. This is Andy Tookey’s bill.

The Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill, when passed into law, will allow for an opt-on, informed consent register where individuals can indicate which organs they wish to donate, and can elect whether the organs are for therapeutic use or for the purposes of medical educational research. There is provision in the bill for those people who wish to register a clear instruction that they do not wish to be an organ donor under any circumstance. The bill also allows for registered donors to change their minds and opt off at any stage. This can be done in writing or orally in the presence of a witness. The bill also, importantly, allows for the wishes of the organ donor to be paramount, and because the informed consent process is rigorous, this means the donor’s wishes are clear, witnessed, and have legal status.

The bill makes provision for both brain-dead and non-beating heart donors, whereby the organs are removed after circulation has ceased. Importantly, provision is also made for public education regarding organ donation. Countries with established organ donor registers that have resulted in an increase in organ donors link their success directly to education and publicity.

The call for change has been evident for over 4 years. In 2002 Andy Tookey and 1,169 others presented a petition to Parliament that requested a review of organ donation practices. The Health Committee tabled reports in November 2003 and October 2004 that requested urgent action to improve New Zealand’s organ donor shortage and provided information on how an organ donor register might work. Our donor rates have dropped further since the Health Committee reported back to Parliament.

Contributing to the problem is the fact that there are fewer brain-dead patients as a result of medical interventions, and fewer people have suffered brain injuries and brain haemorrhages. There is also a greater demand for organs. The threshold to go on a waiting list has been lowered, and organ transplantation is now an option for more and more illnesses, for which it was not contemplated a decade ago. New Zealand is facing an epidemic in diabetes, with the numbers of people on renal dialysis and those requiring kidney transplants set to increase dramatically. The number of people who need a liver transplant is expected to double over the next decade due to liver disease that will result from the 25,000 people with chronic hepatitis C and the 50,000 people with chronic hepatitis B infections. Since 1998 the New Zealand Liver Transplant Unit waiting times have doubled, and the waiting list mortality rate is now 32 percent. There are fewer transplant operations being done; the 2004 figure of only 105 was the lowest since 1996. Over 350 people are currently on a waiting list for organ donation.

Kidney dialysis costs between $22,000 and $45,000 per year per patient. The savings to the health budget from performing kidney transplant operations is considerable. In 2004, 1,770 patients underwent renal dialysis, and 43 percent of those patients were Māori, Pacific Island, or Asian. Māori are overrepresented in those statistics, but for cultural reasons they are reluctant to be donors. When it comes to tissue matching ethnicity does matter and in organ transplants Māori are under-represented. I hope that Māori, as a result of public education and debate amongst themselves, will consider becoming donors.

It has been estimated that one organ donor can save the lives, or improve the quality of life, of between seven and 10 people. Clearly, even a small increase in organ donation rates would save the country in both human and financial costs. We therefore urgently need to raise the organ donor rate in New Zealand. The number of organ donors in New Zealand—only 40 in 2004—was one of the lowest in the Western World, but last year it dropped to just 29. That equates to around 6.7 donors per million of population. As a comparison, Spain, at the other end of the scale, has 39 donors per million of population, the USA has 22, the UK has 13, and Australia has 10.

It has been shown that donor rates can be improved by ensuring that all possible potential donors are identified, that contact is made with the donor’s family in an appropriate way, and through enhanced public education. That has been the experience of South Australia, which has had a voluntary opt-on organ register since 2000. In 2004 its donor rate was 20 per million, which is double that of the Australian-wide donation rate of only 10 per million. Last year, because of medical intervention in brain injury patients, which resulted in fewer brain-dead patients, the rate dropped to 13 per million, but this was still double New Zealand’s rate. South Australia links its success to a team approach of identifying donors, working with families, and having a consent register that gives clarity to the donor’s wishes. The model uses medical donor advisers—intensive care - trained doctors—who work with specially trained organ donor coordinators. Importantly, they work as a team. The success of the South Australian model is such that Western Australia and Queensland are adopting it as well.

With the proposed new Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill, which provides for the opt-on organ donation register and a public education programme, there is a very real expectation and hope that the vast majority of organ donors, because of the process involved when signing up, will inform their family and make their wishes and intentions crystal clear. I believe the organ donor register will help grieving families and the intensive care team by providing clarity in an emotionally charged and fraught situation.

By voting for the bill to go to the select committee, members will be supporting the vast majority of New Zealanders who also want change. There is growing evidence that members of the New Zealand population are not happy about the ability of others to veto their wishes to be donors. In 2004 Colmar Brunton ran a poll asking that very question—whether family members should be able to veto one’s wish to be a donor. A resounding 80 percent said no, they should not. New Zealanders want autonomy over their bodies in death as they have in life. The proposed Organ Donor Register will serve this purpose.

I say to colleagues that I have been heartened by the positive feedback from New Zealanders, and by comments made in newspaper editorials supporting this bill. The “tick a box” licence is not informed consent and is meaningless. In the face of declining organ donor numbers internationally, there is a steady stream of countries implementing organ registers. In the USA, 43 states have a law stipulating others cannot override donors’ wishes, and so do some 26 European countries. Some countries have presumed consent registers where everyone is presumed to be a donor and must physically opt off if they do not wish to be. I urge all members not to invent the wheel but to let all those countries that do well in organ donation become our model for a better system that would not only respect individuals’ wishes and be kinder to grieving families but would save the lives of those who would die needlessly.

I have canvassed the opinions of intensive care doctors and transplant surgeons who have concerns about a donor register. I totally respect the important work they perform in the most difficult of circumstances but I believe this matter should be democratically debated in the Health Committee. I welcome the comments of colleagues in the debate. The Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill has been drafted so that it is a vehicle that can be amended and refined. I urge members to vote for the first reading of this bill so New Zealanders can have that debate and input at the Health Committee.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) : Labour will happily support Dr Jackie Blue’s Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill going to a select committee, and I congratulate her and the co-author, Mr Andy Tookey, on the efforts they have made to get us as far as this. We have reservations, and I shall come to them, but before I do so it seems to me appropriate to say that from my knowledge of organ donation—which is modest but increasing—the member who has just resumed her seat has pretty much canvassed the issues. I think she has canvassed them fairly, and I want to acknowledge her contribution and thank her for it.

I shall certainly not be repeating international comparisons and other matters. Instead of that, it seems to me that my contribution is best limited to mentioning a few things to do with where we are heading as a Government and how the Health Committee may wish to manage the bill when it comes before it.

The Government has, of course, its own initiative in respect of a register. It was a pre-election position for us. Indeed, before the last election a policy was developed for that purpose. I came upon the policy not as the Minister of Health but as the Minister of Transport, because there was hope, at some stage, that we would be able to use existing registers to save a little bit of money. It turns out that the savings are not as we had hoped they would be. That was the point at which I came upon the issue and the good and bad aspects of it. Certainly, the Government joins with the member—and I am sure any other member of this House—in saying that anything that can be reasonably done to improve the organ donation rate of this country across a variety of organs, for the reasons that the member has laid out, is to be supported and we certainly support it strongly.

As to timing, I do not actually know when this human tissues bill, which the Government has in mind to replace the Human Tissue Act 1964, will be introduced into the House, but I do know that it will not be long. I suspect that in about 4 or 5 weeks Cabinet will again look at the next part of the process of getting this bill prepared for introduction, and it is my hope that it will be introduced and, if possible, passed in the 2006 calendar year. We shall see. That therefore influences perhaps—though it is for the select committee to decide—how the committee manages the legislation when it comes before it.

There was a time when I was in Opposition that I was annoyed by the lack of progress on animal welfare legislation. I wrote animal welfare legislation—or, more honestly, had it written for me by the person who had written the Government’s version of the legislation, which the Government had then not proceeded with—and like the member, Dr Jackie Blue, I won a ballot and introduced it. As is the case for the member, the Government then said it had legislation coming along, too. In that particular instance, the Government changed its mind and decided that discretion was the better part of valour. In the end, it was good legislation, and it is on our statute book now. The Government bill of the day took precedence because it was broader and because—frankly—it was a little more modern. It may be—although I do not want in any way to be seen to influence the select committee—that the select committee decides on a similar approach. That is up to it, but in any case my office would happily advise the select committee on the progress of the Government’s bill any time the select committee wishes it.

I hope a range of opinions will be forthcoming; I actually have no doubt that that will be the case. I am sure the aforementioned Mr Tookey will be interested, and I am sure the other person who was quoted with him in the New Zealand Herald on Monday, the vice-president of the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, Dr Peter Hicks, along with other intensivists, will be in front of the Health Committee. They will want the committee to take part in a very serious and interesting debate that the member herself has referred to on the issue of the primacy of the individual to have a say over what happens to his or her body after death. It is an issue that is played out in cremation and autopsy, and it is now about to be played out in organ donation.

The Government has reservations about that aspect of the member’s bill and wants to put those on the table now. Government members are very happy for the select committee to examine the detail. We are particularly happy for the select committee to look at international evidence. As committee members look at all of the international evidence in Europe, and so on—as the member has already alluded to—I ask them also to please contemplate looking across the Tasman, where, I understand, Australia is now beginning to have experience of this kind of legislation. I ask them to try to divine what it is about a register that makes it work or not work. There is the possibility, as the member suggested in her remarks, that it is the surrounding education that matters. That is to say, I ask members not to go for the thing that is easy to do—to get the register up and say that that is it, and that they have done their bit—but to please work out what it is that makes some countries’ registers more successful than others.

Certainly, our organ transplant rate is amongst the lowest in the Western World. In many aspects of our health system we are usually in the top half of any group of countries. In this particular measure, we are second to bottom, according to my figures, with Australia coming in last. So we do have an issue, quite apart from the fact that we have the epidemic of kidney and perhaps liver complaints coming on, for the reasons that the member has pointed out.

Those are my remarks. We want to support the legislation. I personally offer to the member my acknowledgment of, and congratulations on, her work. It is a really good example of members’ legislation in action. We are delighted. We have serious reservations about aspects of the legislation. The Government has its own legislation coming forward, and it may be that the two bills could or should be merged. I ask the select committee members, when they are deliberating on the bill to please—for my sake, as well as for the sake of the rest of the country—pay close attention to what they think are the key drivers behind organ donation rates in other countries; what cultural or educational programmes, for example, what other influences, exist in those other countries that result in such a great disparity in the organ donation rates, and that have ours running second to bottom.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill and will support its passage to select committee. We must congratulate Dr Blue and Mr Tookey on their efforts to increase the awareness of organ donation, and on their bill that together they have brought to the House. In New Zealand First, we are very aware that those countries that have followed this very same line have found that organ donation rates did not increase significantly. I was interested to read in the New Zealand Herald recently that doctors believed that this bill is unworkable and they intend to oppose it for a whole variety of reasons, which we will, no doubt, find out over the next few weeks.

However, by voting the bill through to the select committee the public of New Zealand will have the opportunity to comment on the bill and suggest appropriate amendments, which we need them to do. It is a fact that donor rates are declining internationally, and the New Zealand rate of organ donation is no exception to this trend. Fewer organ transplants are being carried out here, for a whole variety of reasons. So it is not only a New Zealand problem; it is an international one. As the Minister has said, all countries are looking at ways to improve the rate of organ donation, and this type of legislation may be one of the ways that helps to raise the profile of organ donation and, perhaps, result in an increase in various organs for donation. We know that the 2004 figure was very low, as it has been in many years, and the Minister has said that our rate is among the lowest in the Western World.

We were pleased in New Zealand First to see that the bill discusses setting up an opt-on register. We believe that most people, when they tick the donor box on the driver-licensing application, believe they will be a donor, but this is actually not the case, unfortunately. There is no link between the land transport and the health databases. So one must wonder why people are asked during the driver-licensing process about becoming a donor, when their decision cannot be enforced. The proposed register in this bill allows people to indicate which organs they wish to donate and whether these donations can be for therapeutic use, or used for medical education or research. We say that people need to be aware of the necessity of communicating their wishes for donation to their families.

I note that a national donor register would make this unnecessary, but it still can come as a shock to a grieving family that their loved family member wishes this course of action to occur. I am very aware, too, that at this point in time family members can and do overrule the dying family member’s wish.

Aligned to the rate of organ donation is the need for further education of the public in this area. People do need to know more about organ donation and the uses various organs can be put to. Perhaps this bill may lead to increased donor awareness and give people the right to have their wishes respected.

As I said earlier, research from overseas indicates that this type of legislation has not resulted in significant increases in donor rates, but we must acknowledge that some action is better than no action. I am reminded of the saying that failure is not the worst thing in the world, the very worst thing is not to try.

The medical ethics surrounding organ donation will need to be carefully explored during the select committee process. We must be very clear about these, as the grieving family definitely has rights too. Hopefully, the medical profession will be participating in the select committee process to guide our deliberations in this area. New Zealand First acknowledges that this bill is well meaning, and there are issues surrounding organ donation that do need some clarification and public discussion. So we will be most interested to hear the views of the submitters to the select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party would like to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue and Andrew Tookey on bringing this important issue to the House. It is really only those families with family members who require organ donation who know just how important this bill is. I think it must be terrifying to be someone like Andrew Tookey. He has a child who, he knows, will need an organ transplant, and he knows that there were only 29 organ donors last year. He knows too that there are literally hundreds of people waiting—I think about 350 people in New Zealand are waiting for a transplant; they are waiting mainly for kidneys but also for other organs—that some of them are dying because they cannot get an organ, and that their lives would have been saved if one had been available.

I think the key issue in this whole debate is the fact that more than 1 million New Zealanders have indicated on their driver’s licence that they are willing to donate one of their organs, yet only 29 people were donors last year. Why is there a discrepancy? What is going on? When more than 1 million New Zealanders say they are willing to donate an organ, why do we have one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world? Of course, as the Minister has indicated, it is an issue we must address because we will need more and more organs, particularly kidneys, if the epidemics of type 2 diabetes and obesity, etc. continue.

The interesting thing is that Andy Tookey brought this issue to Parliament about 3 years ago, I think. The Health Committee considered it and wrote a report. We had a whole lot of recommendations, and basically the Government turned down most of them. I suspect that, really, this bill is implementing a number of our recommendations—for example, the establishment of a national donor register to replace the current driver’s-licence system. I personally feel frustrated at the length of time this has taken. We discussed this issue, and all members on the Heath Committee agreed that it was urgent and that it was a priority, yet nothing seems to have happened. So I am absolutely delighted that this bill will force the Health Committee to deal with the issue. I hope that we can deal with it as expeditiously as possible, because, frankly, I am frustrated at the seeming lack of action despite the petitions and the recommendations that we have already made.

We have to respect cultural values. That must be inherent in the bill. We have to incorporate tikanga Māori. We have to acknowledge that whānau have a very significant role. We have to find a way to accommodate all of that. Yes, concerns have been raised about whether the wishes of the donor should be able to be overturned by the family. We will have to wrestle with those issues, and we will hear submissions on that.

The other problem is that at the moment it is not clear what a request on a driver’s-licence application form exactly permits. It states: “Would you be willing to donate organs in the event of your death?”. As Barbara Stewart has pointed out, what does this mean—for what purpose? Would it be for a therapeutic purpose? It could be interpreted as giving permission for one’s organs to be used for medical research and education, which some people may not be happy about, at all. So, frankly, the driver’s-licence system, as we all agreed many years ago, does not work, and we need to scrap it. We need to set up an organ donor register, and we need much more publicity. Those are the sorts of things that are proposed in this bill—and were proposed to the Health Committee a number of years ago—and we hope that this time it will result in the select committee, or the Government, coming up with legislation that will address the situation and we will not have 2 or 3 more years of delay. The Green Party is extremely happy to be supporting this member’s bill, and congratulates Jackie Blue and Andy Tookey on their work in bringing it to the House.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : It is not unusual for us to receive calls regarding the deaths of family members. Two days ago I got a call that a whanaunga of mine not in her 60s yet, with a history of diabetes, had passed away. Our people are overrepresented in cases of diabetic renal failure, with rates up to 10 times those of non-Māori. One of the greatest tragedies of our time is that the rate of organ donation to prolong the lives of so many of our whanaunga is low. A statistical analysis by the National Transplant Donor Coordination Office showed that only six Māori families consented to organ donation between 1988 and 1996, from a total of 290 families. Given the prevalence of kidney disease in our population and potential issues around tissue matching, this low rate of organ donation seriously affects Māori people.

We are very aware that the current demand for tissue-compatible Māori organs exceeds current supply. This is a huge issue for our communities, and it is a dialogue that the Māori Party very much wants to continue amongst our people. We welcome and will seek further opportunity for meaningful debate around how health and other professionals deal with the removal, retention, and return of body parts, and with organ donation. We mihi to Jackie Blue, for her courage, and to that member and to Andy Tookey for their initiative in trying to address the donor shortage problem in New Zealand.

But the bill being discussed here today goes far further than many of our people are willing to consider. Many Māori are very uncomfortable with the concept of organ donation following death—the tūpāpaku is tapu, and to interfere with it in any way is abhorrent to our culture. Human tissue organ donation is a massive issue for us, and it raises huge questions about issues of protection, informed consent, tangata whenua control of information and medical processes, access to information and medical care, and, most of all, cultural respect.

The issue of the removal of body parts without seeking informed consent has a heavy history for Māori. Controversy arose in 1991 regarding the removal of organs from Māori bodies either to determine the cause of death or for research or transplant purposes. Some cases dated back to 1963. In many cases the removals were not necessary to determine the cause of death, as, indeed, I spoke about last night in reference to the Coroners Bill. The practice broke tapu and breached Māori cultural protocols, and many whānau were traumatised, suffering unacceptable delays before the tūpāpaku were returned.

I raise another way of looking at this issue. It is one that the Māori Party has been talking about in our communities, given that people spoke so strongly against the bill when we presented it to them. We raised the issue of live transplants between whānau members. That actually seemed to catch on with our people. They were quite accepting of the idea that it is really important that we take responsibility within our whānau to ensure the wellness of our whānau and that we give life back to our own. Despite the fact we are not voting with Jackie tonight, I thank her, because it is probably not an issue we would have otherwise discussed. I thank her for raising this legislation and, in a way, for creating the opportunity for us to take the issue back to our people.

Ethnicity is said to be an important aspect in respect of tissue matching, but I tell members of a recent situation when a whānau were looking for a live donor amongst themselves. In fact, the only match was the Pākehā sister-in-law. The transplant took place, but it was not one of the whakapapa family who gave the donation. There are some very important stories for us to learn from.

In taking this issue to the people we learned of the desire of our people to know more about their legal rights and requirements in relation to organ donation and post-mortems. We heard many concerns that our people have about the process, and the aspiration of wider whānau members, such as kaumātua and kuia, to benefit from the information. We as a political party wanted to send this bill to a select committee, but ultimately our commitment to our constituency means everything, and we must be true to them. Over and over again the bill was rejected outright. Nā reira, ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we will gladly support the first reading of this bill. I congratulate the sponsor, Jackie Blue, and, of course, I congratulate Andy Tookey on the commitment he has shown to this cause.

I have to say that I am a little bit disappointed that the Māori Party has chosen at this stage not to offer support. I think that supporting a first reading gives a great opportunity for ongoing dialogue, not just within this House but outside. I understand the cultural sensitivities around this matter, but I also understand that all cultures are dynamic and responsive to phenomena, and often adjust over time. I believe that this discussion is an important one because of the fact that Māori are so overrepresented in the group that will often need organ donations.

This issue is not unfamiliar to me. I personally have had some ethical dilemmas in my own life regarding certain medical procedures of in vitro fertilisation. I know that the technology has moved on a lot, but years ago, prior to when I was considering having children, I looked very seriously at this issue and wondered what would happen if I discovered I had a fertility problem, because I had some ethical dilemmas around the processes that were available at that time. I decided for myself that if I discovered I was going to have difficulties, I would have to live with those, because I could not ethically condone the practices of in vitro fertilisation of that time.

I mention that because on this matter all members need to ask themselves, with real honesty and regardless of their concerns, what their opinions would be if they or one of their close family members were put in a situation where an organ donation would save a life. All of us need to think that through very carefully. I realise that it is not just the Māori community that has some concerns around this. Other communities in New Zealand share some reservations about what we do with body parts. I respect those views, but I also think that this technology provides us with an opportunity to think again and to re-evaluate, together as a community, what this means.

This bill is long overdue. For years we have put up with the silly situation whereby upon going into an Automobile Association office to sign up for a driver’s licence, we suddenly, often unexpectedly, are faced with the chance to tick a box and say whether we are prepared to be a donor. Often we have not given it any thought at all, and we make a snap decision. I know of many people who did not tick the box because they could think of parts of their body that they did not want to donate, and other parts that they would be happy to donate. They did not get that option on the form, and therefore they ticked “No”. The other aspect is that two very unrelated things—a driver’s licence and an organ donation system—are linked together, and that very matter was one of the things the select committee looked at when Mr Tookey petitioned us.

One of the things that I suggest would be an interesting consideration would be to look at the current blood donor system. People go in to give blood in donation mode. They may be very open at that stage to considering organ donation. When people have decided to be a donor, we must follow up that offer with some really good information and encourage them to spend time talking to their families. Certainly, since Mr Tookey brought his petition I have done just that with my family. We have discussed organ donation thoroughly. I have expressed my desire to be an organ donor. I have checked with my children, who are now adults, about what their desire would be if something befell them. We have talked about it really clearly, and we all now know where we stand on that.

I also mention in passing that one of my roles in my previous life was as a funeral celebrant. So I am very well acquainted with the trauma and emotional baggage that goes on when people have lost someone very close to them, and I know how difficult it is to make a decision. We agree with surgeons that nobody wants to force a family who are grieving to go ahead with the donation against their will. That is why it is really important to have this discussion. We will support this bill. We think some changes need to be made, but we congratulate the sponsor of the bill, and we congratulate Andy Tookey. It is great that this discussion can now begin.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : It is very encouraging to hear that the Minister is keen for an open and collaborative discussion on how we in New Zealand can increase organ donation. I certainly also hope that during the select committee process the Māori Party’s views will be well made to and better understood across the various parties in the House. But, firstly, I acknowledge the initiative and work of my colleague Dr Jackie Blue and congratulate her on the way she has taken on the responsibility of this bill. I also acknowledge Andy Tookey, who is sitting in the gallery. He firstly, with dogged determination, brought a petition to Parliament, and then he consistently supported with ardent fervour this organ donation bill coming into Parliament.

Dr Blue has clearly outlined that donor shortage is a major problem in New Zealand, and that with an ageing population and an obesity and diabetic epidemic in the country there will be even greater demands for donor organs into the future. Unless new techniques such as may occur from stem cell research become a reality, demand will continue to outstrip supply.

I also acknowledge the altruism of individuals and families throughout New Zealand who are willing to donate their organs to help others. It is classic Kiwi goodwill that so many are available. The tragedy is that so few come for donation in New Zealand. It is clear that many New Zealanders know little about the complexities and subtleties, legal and technical, associated with organ donation. One thing that I think must never occur is the commercial aspect to donation, apart from compensation for expenses. Coupled with the donor’s generosity, it is fundamental to acknowledge the extremely sensitive, demanding, and challenging work that doctors, nurses, and intensivists—transplant specialists—undertake on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week, to enable the process of organ donation to proceed effectively when organs are available in New Zealand.

The House should be reminded that the 2004 report of the Health Committee recommended to the Government that it proceed to investigate the option of an indicative register that records organ donation wishes, independent of its review of the regulation of human tissue and tissue-based therapy. Dr Stephen Streat, a specialist intensivist, has taken on the extremely demanding job of clinical leader of Organ Donation New Zealand. There is no doubt that it is hugely important, if we are to achieve a successful organ donor system in New Zealand, that the views of all participants in the process are thoroughly understood and listened to so that it runs smoothly. There needs to be a framework of cooperation, not a framework of conflict.

I understand that in the United Kingdom there has been antagonism between the transplant and the intensive care community. However, in New Zealand under the present regime, indicative as it is, there is a highly collaborative relationship that leads to the smooth running of this very technically complex process. It has been impressed on me that the quality of the processes developed must be extremely high, as any mistakes are liable to be magnified. New Zealand does have a legacy of failures around informed consent, dating from the National Women’s Hospital cervical cancer inquiry, the Gisborne inquiry, the Green Lane Hospital heart library, and the neonatal physiotherapy saga. Therefore, it is vital that the lessons learnt from these extremely damaging episodes of New Zealand history are taken on board when it comes to developing the regulatory framework of a successful donor system, and particularly the parameters around informed consent.

I end by saying that Dr Jackie Blue’s bill will serve as a very important template to generate informed discussion about organ donation. Hopefully, after going through the select committee process, it will achieve a regulatory framework that successfully serves the organ donation needs of the New Zealand community and will be evidence-based.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am pleased to take a call tonight and I congratulate Dr Jackie Blue on her initiatives in bringing this bill to the House. However, I have to say that I have great reservations about it, and I am glad to have the opportunity to mention them.

I was chair of the Health Committee when we heard Andy Tookey’s petition, and we were all very moved. I am glad he is here tonight to see this bill coming to the House. I think this bill will certainly stimulate and increase discussion about the position of organ donation in New Zealand.

We were very careful. We took Andy’s petition very, very seriously because we are worried about the organ donation rate in this country. We came up with eight recommendations, and not one of those recommendations was a legislative option. I remind all members that after we had heard the petition, not one of our eight recommendations suggested a bill. We were focused on ongoing education campaigns. We were looking at a national public awareness campaign. We knew there needed to be a lot of discussion with Māori over the issues of lore, not law. We knew that we were a long way away from increasing that level of awareness. We instigated the establishment of Organ Donation New Zealand, and I was really thrilled to see that happen. My colleague Sue Kedgley said that nothing has happened, but Organ Donation New Zealand is now set up. It is now moving to develop policies and protocols to increase awareness of the need for organ donation.

I admit to some frustration with the New Zealand driver’s-licence system, and the farce that it is to tick the box to be registered as a donor. I sought approval from Cabinet to draft a member’s bill. Off I went, with a legal drafter, to see the intensivists at Auckland Hospital. I was told very, very clearly that no matter what is on the driver’s licence and on a register, they will never look at that first, because they never want to be put in the position, with end-of-life care, of looking like they are harvesting organs. They want a family to reach its own conclusion in respect of end-of-life care. They do not want it to look like they see the tick on the register then go in to harvest the organs. We have to respect that. They are the intensivists whom we all depend upon when we have a loved one needing end-of-life care. I came out of that meeting with those people who now run Organ Donation New Zealand and decided that I would not draft a bill. That was after doing a lot of research on the international figures.

I think this Government has gone about this issue the right way. It is about incremental change. We now have Organ Donation New Zealand. It is progressing. We have also developed a human tissue bill. That has been done. We are waiting for the bill to be introduced, as the Minister Pete Hodgson said. Developing that bill was an incredibly important step, because when we went out on consultation, with a discussion document, we received an enormous response from people around the country. They too did not understand the complexity around organ donation. That bill will address the issues that are in Dr Blue’s bill. I think it will be interesting to see which one comes first and how the Health Committee interfaces the approaches.

I do not believe that legislation is the right mechanism at this stage to increase organ availability. I think we need to look at the issue of informed consent when we get our driver’s licence or when we register with a primary health organisation. That is the time to have a discussion with the family doctor about what it means to be a donor, and whether a donor can give some organs and not others. We can then go back and make our families very aware of our wishes. That is indicative consent that the family will give. I do not like the fact that the family has no power of veto. I do not think that will help towards the yield of organs, which we want in order to increase the numbers on the Organ Donor Register.

It will be interesting to see how the Health Committee looks at the human tissue legislation and at Dr Blue’s bill. I urge the Health Committee to invite those intensivists to participate, and also to look at the very interesting opinion that is held at the moment by the New Zealand Medical Association, which has a contrary view. The committee has the difficult task of putting those views together, and I wish it well.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) : It is my pleasure to speak today in support of Dr Jackie Blue’s Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge Andy Tookey’s presence here. I know he made the trip down here before the adjournment to hear this bill. We did not get through all the business that night, so it is a sign of his dedication that he is back here again.

I believe that this bill will go some way to addressing the pressing problem of a shortage of organs for donation in this country. As such, it really does stand to benefit greatly the people of New Zealand. It will represent a significant change to the current system for donor arrangements. The bottom line is that organ donation saves lives. New Zealanders deserve the right to have their wishes respected in death, including the decision to donate an organ.

Many New Zealand families have been enormously comforted in times of distress by the knowledge that a dearly loved family member has been able to give another human being the chance of life. What is more, the long-term success rates for transplant surgery have increased dramatically over the past few years. Now, 5 years after gaining a new heart, 75 percent of recipients are still alive, and 5 years after receiving a new liver, 90 percent of people are still living. From just one donor, as many as 10 people can directly benefit and drastically improve their quality of life or be given the chance of continued life. Organ donation has positively impacted on the lives of many, many New Zealanders and their families. However, it is my belief that the current Act is not working and that New Zealand really does need to proactively address why our level of organ donation is so low, so that we can find a solution to this problem before more people die while waiting for a donor organ to become available. In 2004 approximately 400 New Zealanders were waiting for a donor organ, and there are 350 at the present time. In 2005, 19 people died while waiting for a donor organ, and with a diabetes epidemic upon us, the demand for donor kidneys will further outstrip the number of organs available.

Interestingly, around 1.1 million New Zealanders have said yes to organ donation on their drivers’ licences. In many cases, though, when someone in this situation becomes eligible to donate his or her organs, family members veto such a request. This is one of the major issues that Jackie Blue’s bill seeks to address. Although only a small number of people who die each year are medically suitable to donate their organs, on average 43 percent of these people are stopped from donating due to the veto of the family. Indeed, it is well known that putting “donor” on one’s driver’s licence is not a legally binding way to become an organ donor. This bill would make a person’s stated and documented wish to donate legally binding.

Another area of contention in the current Act is the lack of a national register for organ donors, as well as there being no choice as to what organs a person can choose to donate. For an organ donation system to work effectively, a national register such as the one Dr Blue proposes is necessary. This is because such a register would include non-drivers, unlike the current system, and would allow people to specify which organs they would and would not like to donate once they are deceased. As well as this, they would be given a choice about what their organs would be used for—for medical research or for donation to a fellow human being.

In 2004 the Health Committee considered the issue of organ donor rates and what could be done about increasing them. Although there have been efforts to act on many of the committee’s recommendations, it is clear that more impetus is required. New Zealanders deserve the chance for this bill to be examined at select committee level. There is a groundswell of public support out there for this issue to be examined. The articles, letters, and editorials in our newspapers are testament to this. We are under no illusion that there will not be difficulties in enacting what this bill proposes, but we would be letting down the people of New Zealand if we filed this one away in the too-hard basket.

In summary, the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill seeks to address the shortcomings of the current system. It is a step in the right direction of addressing a major problem for our nation—our terribly low organ donor rates. Any bill that seriously attempts to do this should be given the chance to be considered in detail by this Parliament. We owe that to the people.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I would like to thank all members for their comments. I am grateful there appears to be support for this bill to go to the Health Committee. I thank the Minister the Hon Pete Hodgson for his input, and I agree that we must get it right. The Health Committee must look overseas to find examples of how the legislation works. I believe the key will be a register that gives clarity, education, and teamwork, and I agree with Steve Chadwick that Organ Donation New Zealand has started that process already. When I met with Steve in the street, I was very impressed and very pleased to learn that that teamwork is happening in the intensive care units around New Zealand.

I acknowledge Tariana Turia. I respect the Māori Party’s position, and understand the cultural difficulties it has with donations from deceased donors. I am very pleased that as a result of this bill there has been discussion and debate with Ms Turia’s people, and that Māori are now talking about live donation. I note in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald that a Māori health worker, Mr Phil Heremaia, will go on the road in a bid to increase donor rates among Māori people, and I think that is a very positive step.

In conclusion, I thank all members for their comments. The bill will be a challenge, but it is one that the Health Committee must meet, as we must find a way through this issue.

• Bill read a first time.
• Bill referred to the Health Committee.referred to Health Committee

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I move, That the Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am very happy to promote this bill to the House. The bill has really come out of seeing a model working, and working in a particular area, with quite startling outcomes. There have been some very, very good results from what has been achieved in the Fiordland area—but I will talk more about that later. I thank spokespeople from the various parties who have shown an interest in this bill, and those who have consulted with me during the process today. I thank them for their interest.

Initially, I will say a few things about marine reserves. I do not believe that there should be an arbitrary percentage of the economic zone in a marine reserve. I think that if we are to adopt that, we are admitting failures in a number of areas. In 1996 the Fisheries Act was rewritten to embrace the purposes and principles of sustainability, and that is what underpins the management of the marine areas of New Zealand. Sustainability must come first. Marine reserves are important—they are an important tool—but they fit alongside a number of other mechanisms that are embraced in that legislation: mātaitai reserves, tai-ā-pure, fisheries management plans, total allowable catch management of the fishery, and a whole number of mechanisms that are there. Marine reserves are an important part of that. There is a rational argument that we should preserve some parts of our marine environment untouched and unmodified. There is a rational argument that there are fragile areas that need protection—and I am thinking of some of the black and red corals that exist in Fiordland, and of similar examples around New Zealand. These need to be protected, and the marine reserve may well be the best mechanism for doing that. There are places in the marine reserve that are high recruitment areas where fish go to spawn. I can think of a number of areas like that where a marine reserve may well be the appropriate mechanism of protection. There are some iconic locations in our marine environment where placing a marine reserve over those locations increases the prestige and enhances the value of those particular areas. So marine reserves are important.

So the question arises as to why this particular bill is necessary. If we look at our track record of the process of setting up marine reserves and at how many marine reserves have been established, particularly in recent days, we can see that it is, indeed, a very tortuous process. In some instances there were quite lengthy and quite polarised opinions, quite a degree of acrimony and, indeed, some isolation. In fact, in the last 7 years under this Labour Government 13 marine reserves have been established. Now, that may sound—

Hon Chris Carter: Sixteen.

ERIC ROY: Well, I am corrected. My researcher tells me 13. Well, if it is 16 that is fine. The interesting thing is that eight of these marine reserves were established in Fiordland by the process upon which the Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill is modelled. Simply, this bill requires consultation with all stakeholders. We are saying that every stakeholder is important in the establishment. We have had situations whereby stakeholders have not considered their worth as being equal and in many cases have felt isolated, so they have taken a position of antagonism towards marine reserves.

The situation in Fiordland was that all the stakeholders said that it is a precious and unique area and that they needed to do some things to manage it. That was the concept around which they gathered. There were commercial operators who were in tourism and fishing, recreational boaties, fishermen, iwi, and conservationists. A range of people simply got together and set up the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and Marine Environment. Yes, they got some help from a few people with specialities in the area to guide and lead them, but essentially it was a homespun solution to a very unique and precious part of New Zealand.

Out of that came the recognition that we need to have protection over some areas, and that the best way to do that is to have marine reserves. In one piece of legislation eight marine reserves were established, simply because consultation was taken seriously and all the parties who had an interest in that particular area were consulted. I think that is an absolutely stunning result. There we have an example whereby half of the marine reserves that have been established in the last 7 years were achieved by the group that had total consultation in the area. So I say that it is absolutely necessary that we consider the importance of individual stakeholders in establishing a marine reserve.

This bill requires that consultation. I am aware that there is a Marine Reserves Bill 2002 that is parked in the Local Government and Environment Committee, so at the conclusion of the debate on this particular bill—and I presume that it will be successful—I will move that it go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is my expectation that this bill will stimulate some result and that we may see the more complete Marine Reserves Bill come back on to the Table. I notice that the Minister of Conservation is nodding. That will be my second objective in putting in this bill, and I want to see some action on this.

Where this bill differs slightly in process to the Marine Reserves Bill is in relation to Part 4 of the Marine Reserves Bill, regarding the consultation and establishment process. I say to members that they might like to consider, in particular, clauses 46 to about 53. The bill that I am promoting ramps up the process of consultation with those stakeholders.

I am happy to promote this bill. I believe that it will be a significant step forward. I live between two areas that have totally different approaches. On one side of me is Nugget Point, and the Minister Clayton Cosgrove, I am sure, will recognise the agony that has been gone through around that process. Having met with those people—[Interruption] I know that the member for Waimakariri is indeed interested in this bill. He cannot contain himself; he is so excited to promote it. He may care just to listen and learn from the example. What I am saying is that in Nugget Point there is a totally polarised position whereby the local community is not in favour of it. Some are in favour and some are not, but, essentially, they feel disenfranchised. On the other side, in Fiordland, where there was complete involvement by a whole range of stakeholders, there are now eight marine reserves, just like that.

Probably one of the key aspects in including this wider consultation is that if the community is involved, they take ownership of the outcome. In taking ownership of that outcome they actually value that outcome, and that will be one of the key protection items in maintaining compliance with a marine reserve. Many of these marine reserves are in quite isolated areas. One can think of up around the islands to the north of New Zealand, of the subantarctic, and of Fiordland. We do not actually have a lot of fisheries officers there to monitor and ensure the protection of and compliance with what a marine reserve establishes. So if we have a buy-in from the community, they will ensure the compliance with what is necessary to maintain that marine reserve.

I commend this bill to the House. I thank members who have shown an interest in it. I look forward to seeing it progress through the Local Government and Environment Committee, and also look forward to the Marine Reserves Bill 2002 being reconsidered so that we might have some sensible outcomes with one tool. That is important to the management of our marine environment.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) : The Government will support the Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, who is sponsoring the bill, Eric Roy, said, New Zealand has a biologically rich and complex marine environment.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Sometimes members’ interjections are nice and witty. The accusation by “Mini Mike Moore” over there that I should be bouncing away in a bar is absolutely horrendous. I ask you, Madam Assistant Speaker, to get him to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I realise I have just a couple of minutes to go. In 2 weeks’ time, when the bill comes back, I will be in Kiribati visiting the third-largest marine protected area in the world, which was declared as such a few weeks ago by the Government of that Pacific Island State.

Marine protection is something that all countries of the world with a coastline and marine area are absolutely passionate about. New Zealand has the world’s fourth-largest marine zone—a zone that is 15 times larger than our land area—and contained within that unique biological area are some 15,000 species, most of which are endemic to our region. It is absolutely critical that we protect them. Marine reserves provide one tool for doing that.

Mr Roy is correct: the Marine Reserves Bill has been sitting with the Local Government and Environment Committee for a long time. I hope his bill, which I support, will stimulate progress on that legislation. There is a real opportunity for the consultative processes that he has incorporated into his bill to be weaved into the Marine Reserves Bill, because the bills contain many similar provisions. Also, of course, the Government has declared its marine protected area strategy, which I launched last year with the Minister of Fisheries. The strategy is all about creating an environment where key stakeholders—recreational fishers, commercial fishers, iwi, local government, and conservationists—work together to create just the sort of outcome that Mr Roy described in respect of Fiordland.

• Debate interrupted.