DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I distinctly recall that when I was last speaking on this clause everybody was on the edge of their seats, waiting to hear what I was going to say further on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I have been so looking forward to this bill coming back to the Committee of the whole House today.

I was talking about GST. I was saying that under this legislation, in the transfer of this land, no GST will apply, unlike—

Chris Tremain: That’s right. Now I remember.

DAVID SHEARER: The senior whip remembers distinctly. He has thought about it for the last 2 weeks as this bill has gone from one members’ day to the next members’ day. Under this bill GST is not applied, unlike the situation for everybody else in New Zealand, who has to pay GST at the inflated rate of 15 percent. The rate of GST was increased by the National Government, which went against its election promise in 2008. It promised not to put up GST. John Key specifically said that, yet National put up GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent and broke that promise. The promise has been broken again. We are seeing the same things emerge in regard to Working for Families and the various excuses that have come out as a result of the Christchurch earthquake.

I am referring directly in this speech to clause 8(b), regarding the goods and services tax, which does not apply in this case to Parana Park. Would it not be great if the goods and services tax did not apply not only to Parana Park but also to fresh fruit and vegetables? If the goods and services tax did not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, then they would be much cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders. Ordinary New Zealanders would not have to pay that tax, and fruit and vegetables would be cheaper. We know from scientific studies that have been done throughout the country that the uptake and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables would increase if they were cheaper.

The bill in some ways is leading the way in terms of the goods and services tax not being levied. I would like to think that Parana Park and fresh fruit and vegetables go together in not having GST apply to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think we need to come back to clause 8.

DAVID SHEARER: I come to a second point that we raised in the consideration of a couple of the other clauses in the bill. Clause 3 sets out the area known as Parana Park. The title of clause 8 states: “Vesting of land not gift, supply of services, or disposition, for certain purposes”. If we are vesting land there, we want to know pretty exactly what land we are, in fact, vesting. It is not clear, and we brought up the matter in some of the earlier comments on the bill. I would appreciate clarification from David Bennett, who brought the bill into Parliament. He has our support, but I think he has to clarify the issue. Perhaps he has had the chance in the last 2 weeks—if he was in his electorate; I am sure he was—to check out where that 0.4 of a hectare, which is nearly 1 acre, has disappeared to. Perhaps he could clarify that in a response to the Committee and to all of us here who are supporting the bill.

None of us has anything against the bill. We think it is visionary. We think George Parr was visionary. He was a man of vision and a person who had a plan for this area of the country. He was a man quite unlike the Prime Minister, for example, who does not seem to have a plan or vision for the country. But Mr George Parr had a vision.

Perhaps the member could give us some indication as to where 0.4 of a hectare of Parana Park has disappeared to. It may have been converted into a dairy farm. I doubt it; I do not think 0.4 of a hectare would necessarily be good for a dairy farm in the middle of central Hamilton. I suspect that it includes the house that is currently occupied by the Hamilton City Council grounds staff. They occupy one corner of the park and use it to administer the park. Perhaps that is the answer, but I do not wish to put words into the Min—

David Bennett: Yeah.

DAVID SHEARER: —into the member’s mouth. I nearly said “Minister” then. I would like to hear—and I am sure people on our side of the Chamber also want to hear—what has happened to the nearly 1 acre of land.

I imagine 1 acre of land in the middle of Hamilton is very valuable. Let us face it: people could put apartments on it or subdivide it into eight or nine blocks and sell it all off. We would not want to see any inappropriate use of that land. We would like to see it being used in the way George Parr intended it to be used: for the children, for historic value, for recreation, and for its reserve status in the middle of one of New Zealand’s urban centres. We would like to see it being used appropriately. I am sure the Tainui Māori Trust Board, which spoke on the bill, also has some concerns, because that 0.4 of a hectare is close to the river. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : For a moment there I thought the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill might be rising to his feet, but thank you, Chairman Roy, for giving me the call on clause 8 of the bill.

Clause 8 is a very important clause. It was obviously an important factor that the council decided to include the clause for the sake of avoidance of doubt and for the sake of certainty, I suppose. In fact, all three subclauses of clause 8 refer to taxes and to duties that have come under some scrutiny and attention from the Government. There have been changes—or at least there have been announcements of intended changes—to each one of the subclauses, so it was probably quite a good idea from the Hamilton City Council to include clause 8 in the bill, in order to give it some certainty.

I will start with clause 8(a). Clause 8 states: “To avoid doubt, the vesting of the land by this Act is not—(a) a dutiable gift for the purposes of the Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968:”. People will know that as gift duty—the tax one pays if one gifts a large asset or a large amount of money, which is, I think, in excess of $27,000 in one financial year. Gift duty has to be paid on that asset. The Chair is shaking his head. I do not know; maybe I am not quite accurate, but I know I am in the zone. I am getting to the general guts of what gift duty is about. Gift duty is all about ensuring that people who have considerable assets cannot hide or dispose of those assets in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The Government has announced its intention to abolish gift duty. That will allow the Government’s mates who have massive assets—whether they be in land, shares, or any other form an asset can take, even cash—to perhaps be able to gift those assets to a family member or to someone close to them, which would assist them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That seems just outrageous when the Government has increased taxes on middle and low income, hard-working wage earners and salary earners, who have to pay more taxes through GST. GST is also referred to in clause 8, and I will come back to that later on. People are paying more taxes, and the Government has announced that it will allow people of significant wealth—people who can afford to pay their fair share and who can contribute to the community, society, and country to make sure we can get ourselves out of debt, grow the economy, and provide the services the Government ought to be providing to New Zealanders—to be able to hide their assets and avoid paying their fair share of tax. I do not think that is on.

But it seems appropriate, given that the bill is about vesting Parana Park—it is not a gift—that the Hamilton City Council sought to have that clarified in the bill. If the bill had taken a little bit longer to pass through the House—I know it has already taken a little longer than the member in charge of the bill thought it might—we might have found that the clause was obsolete and unnecessary, because the Government is going ahead and abolishing gift duty for everybody. That will create that unfairness whereby people who can afford to pay tax will be able to avoid doing so while the Government increases tax on those people who can least afford it.

That takes me to clause 8(b), which is about GST. GST will not be applied to the vesting of that land. That was a very good move, a wise move, on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. It would have paid a whole lot more GST because the Government increased GST.

Although the Government is making more loopholes for wealthy people to hide their assets and reduce the tax they have to pay, it has increased tax on ordinary, hard-working Kiwi families, who are spending most of what they earn at the supermarket. Those families who are simply getting by from one week to the next, or from one fortnight to the next, have to pay 15 percent GST, but the Hamilton City Council will not have to pay 15 percent GST under clause 8(b). Hard-working, ordinary, Kiwi families, who do not have massive assets, who do not have large tracts of land from which to generate income, who are living from one week to the next, and who are trying just to put food on the table for their families and their children, have to pay the full 15 percent GST that is excluded in clause 8(b).

Clause 8(c) refers to the “sale, disposition, distribution, or transfer of property or liability for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007.” That was another area where the Hamilton City Council obviously decided in advance that it would have to make sure it had some certainty and clarity on income tax because the Government had made a number of announcements on income tax. The National Government was all at sea at first. First, it cut taxes as soon as it came into Government, then it realised that was not affordable, so it repealed them. Then it introduced some more tax cuts. It turns out that those were not affordable, either. Now the Government’s coffers are in such a bad way that it has to borrow millions and millions of dollars every week to pay for income tax cuts that it provided to people who were on the very highest incomes.

If there was income being derived from this land, the Hamilton City Council would have received quite a significant tax cut, because the income derived from this land would be quite significant. But if the Hamilton City Council were just a salary or wage earner who was earning at the lower end, it would have received very, very little. In fact, it would have been very important, even doubly important, that clause 8(b) was included. It would have wanted to avoid paying GST because the increase in GST for salary and wage earners was much larger than what they received in the pitiful tax cuts they got if they were at the lower end of the income spectrum.

I think clause 8 is a massively important clause in this bill, because this bill is all about giving certainty to the nature of this land and to its status as a public asset. We have already discussed how the Hamilton City Council is doing such a wonderful job of ensuring that this land remains a public asset, how it would be unreasonable to expect the Hamilton City Council to pay gift duty, GST, or income tax on what is simply a change or a re-establishment of the description of this land, rather than a sale or change in title of this land. Those provisions are sensible and important for the Hamilton City Council.

But would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have those provisions apply to them? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have to pay National’s 15 percent GST? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to get the kinds of tax cuts that people at the top have been able to get, which are reflected in the income tax cut that the Hamilton City Council gets from this clause?

Clause 8 is very sensible. It is important that there is certainty for the Hamilton City Council. It is important that this land is retained as a public asset. It is great to see that the Hamilton City Council is not hocking it off to pay its bills. It obviously has much better fiscal management than this Government has. It is able to retain its assets; it does not have to sell them off to foreigners in the way that this Government is doing.

From that point of view, Labour is very, very comfortable with clause 8, and we thoroughly support it. We think having those clarifications in this bill is very important for the Hamilton City Council. We hope this bill gives the Hamilton City Council the certainty it requires to retain Parana Park in its current state.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I am very pleased to stand in support of clause 8 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which has been brought in in the name of the Hamilton City Council—

Paul Quinn: What about those 16,000 Playcentre kids being funded; 9,000 kōhanga reo kids?

SUE MORONEY: I ask whether the member opposite is in the right debate, as I am not sure. I can talk about early childhood education if the member would like me to, but I was going to try to stick to the clause in this instance. It would be nice to have the opportunity to talk about passenger train services from Hamilton to Auckland, as well, but I will leave that aside for now. I was just responding to the interjection, Mr Chair.

Coming back to clause 8, which deals with the vesting of land, I am particularly pleased to stand in support of this part of the bill, because I think that in the time since the Hamilton City Council drafted this legislation, the clause has become even more pertinent. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out, it ensures that the Hamilton City Council does not incur any further cost than is necessary in having Parliament take over and vest this land, once this bill passes. We would not want the council to incur any further cost, because since it drafted this bill, the council has found that its costs have been a real problem. It was reported just last week that because of the recession—which is National’s recession now because it has double-dipped, and that must be because of what the National Government has not done—the council now faces a very precarious financial situation. It was reported just last week in the Waikato Times that as a result of there being no growth in the economy in Hamilton, the council is facing—

David Bennett: It’s not true.

SUE MORONEY: The member in the chair, David Bennett, who is in charge of this bill, said that that is not true, but it was there in black and white that the council has lost $4 million in the development contributions that it had budgeted for in this financial year, and that is for Hamilton City Council alone. That tells us that economic growth has dropped so badly in Hamilton that there is just no development going on there. Although the Hamilton City Council had budgeted knowing about the global recession that was taking place, it put forward a budget of X amount of dollars, which has fallen short by $4 million just on the development contribution alone. The council has also identified that as a result of there being no extra money available for families to spend in Hamilton, what had been budgeted for to be brought in through gate sales for the Waikato Stadium has fallen by $780,000 in just 1 financial year. That tells us a story about ordinary families not being able to spare $20 or $25 to go to the rugby match because things are so stretched on that front. It is really important, because of those circumstances, that this Parliament supports this part of the bill, where we make sure, or the drafters of the bill have made sure, that no further cost is incurred.

I must congratulate those who drafted the bill, as they have done a very good job on it—I tell Mr Bennett that I am referring to the officials, but if the member has actually put pen to paper and drafted the bill himself, then I would apologise, withdraw that comment, and would want to congratulate the member; however, I suspect that it was the officials—because little in this bill has become controversial. I think that is the result of good drafting.

However, we need to support this clause because of the terrible financial situation that the Hamilton City Council has found itself in due to the lack of economic growth in our region and our city. I think that it has to come back to an absolute lack of a plan from the current Government that we have families who are really stretched and who cannot afford to go to rugby matches and the funding has fallen. Therefore, it is so important that we make sure there are no additional and unnecessary costs for the Hamilton City Council to try to cover off in its budget this year. We know that if gift duties were to be paid on this land and if GST were to be paid, it would come back on the ratepayer.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I rise to take a very short call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Bill. Those of us in the Chamber 2 weeks ago will remember that we had a lengthy debate about this bill because we felt that it was very important to the people of Waikato. It was also a great example to other territorial authorities around the country of honouring the intent of land gifted to councils. I come from Rotorua. I acknowledge the good people of Ngāti Whakauē, who have endowed amazing stretches of land to our city to be used as recreational reserves for the benefit of the many and not just the few. This bill is a reflection of the way city councils and regional authorities around the country are taking seriously their responsibility for managing assets under their purview.

Clause 8 is a short clause but I think it is very significant. I too congratulate the drafters because clause 8 makes very clear what the vesting of the land is not. It covers off the dutiable gift, so there will be no incurring of gift duties on the transfer of this land. Clause 8(b) states: “a supply of goods and services for the purposes of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985:”, and I think that makes things very clear for the Hamilton City Council to go ahead. I congratulate them.

I hope that the member in the chair, David Bennett, who is supporting the bill, has done his homework. We were very concerned about the footprint of the land and the missing 0.4 hectares. The good member in the chair has had time over the last 2 weeks to go away and find out what happened to that land, and whether the missing land was due to an anomaly between the historical archive reserves of the Hamilton City Council and land registered on the land base of that region of the Waikato. We do want to find out about that. It may have been sold off. If it was sold off, it has been lost to the people of Waikato.

This legislation shows that regional authorities around the country do have a plan, as opposed to the Government at the moment, which, clearly, does not have a plan. When we have an asset like Parana Park, which is a beautiful park and is certainly not for sale, we need a plan. But we in the Opposition are very concerned about what assets are for sale, as the Government tries to get on top of the double-dip, National-constructed recession. Before the Canterbury earthquake hit, we were facing a double-dip recession. This Government needs to make sure that it is not looking at selling assets as a way of getting out of this constructed double-dip recession, which is part of National’s mismanagement of the economy. The Hamilton City Council, on the other hand, is making sure it is looking after assets. I think it is great that there will be no incurring of GST, as clause 8(b) states.

I congratulate Waikato and the Hamilton City Council. This is something for ordinary Kiwis who cannot afford to travel now because of the costs of travel, the costs of petrol, and cost of living pressures. Those costs mean they cannot get out of the Waikato. Families there are rather trapped, but they can go to Parana Park. They can go to Parana Park and play in the paddling pool. That is wonderful for the many and not just for those at the top who got a tax cut and who can afford to get on an Air New Zealand flight from Waikato and get around the country. This will be a wonderful asset for families facing incredible cost of living pressures. They can get out on Saturday and look at and enjoy this recreational reserve. I think these provisions, called “Miscellaneous provisions”, are incredibly important for stipulating in law what this vesting of land is not all about for the good people of Waikato.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.

• Clause 8 agreed to.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I hoped that Mr Macindoe would make a full contribution on a bill that is important to our city, The Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, but perhaps he will have something to say on clause 9. I certainly hope he does have something to contribute in that regard. Clause 9 essentially gives powers to the Registrar-General of Land to make the computer documentation of the transfer of Parana Park into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. I would like to be able to say “Parana Park of X number of hectares”, but of course that is in some dispute. I really want to stand up and support this clause, because I think it makes sense and it is very sensible. However, there is the issue of the outstanding problem of not knowing exactly how much land will be registered by the Registrar-General of Land. I do not know whether people following this debate can remember 2 weeks ago, but in changing the drafting of one of the earlier clauses defining this piece of land, my colleague David Shearer did a bit of maths and worked out that the new descriptor of how large the piece of land was did not match the previous description of the land, which went through a number of blocks of land that made up Parana Park. What we discovered—

Tim Macindoe: He took 10 minutes to tell us all about it again today.

SUE MORONEY: Well, I say to Mr Macindoe that that would be because we still have not had an answer from the member sponsoring this bill, David Bennett. He has had 2 weeks now—he has had 2 weeks. I know that David Shearer asked the question about whether David Bennett had been in the electorate during that period of time, and I can say that I know that David Bennett has been in the electorate during that course of time. It would have been great if he had got out, because we had great sunny weather for the whole of those 2 weeks. He could have got out with his tape. He could have gone around and measured the circumference of Parana Park and done some real work for this bill. I do not know—maybe he did put pen to paper and draft this bill, but my guess is that he probably did not.

Grant Robertson: I’m thinking not.

SUE MORONEY: Possibly he did not, but it would have been good to see him do some background research over the course of those 2 weeks to find out what the area of that land is. Because we have a dispute between the two definitions. It is of concern when we look at clause 9, because now clause 9 is giving the power to the Registrar-General of Land to transfer this land on to the computer database, yet there is still some uncertainty about how large that piece of land is and what the definition should be about describing that piece of land.

On clause 8, which we have just finished debating, I must say that we were all in support of it because it did not put unnecessary costs on the Hamilton City Council. As I described in my previous contribution, it is a city council—and I am sure it is not alone in this—that is struggling, because of a lack of economic growth in the area, to contain the cost to ratepayers. Let us face it: any cost that is put on the Hamilton City Council by the passing of this bill will be passed on to its ratepayers. Those ratepayers have already faced an increase in GST on everything they purchase, they are facing increasing petrol costs, and some of them are facing increased early childhood education fees, as well. So we do not want to pass on any more costs by passing this bill, to the Hamilton City Council, which would therefore be picked up by Hamilton ratepayers.

It concerns me that the select committee made a change to clause 9. We previously looked at a bill that was drafted to state: “The Registrar must, without fee, (a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land …”. That has now changed. The bill states: “The Registrar-General must, on application,”. That means the Hamilton City Council—and I am assuming it will be the Hamilton City Council—will be responsible for paying a fee for the computer transfer to occur. I think that is really unfortunate.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Before I get on to my contribution on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, I would like to clarify some statements I made during the debate on clause 8. I have been advised by a learned colleague of mine in the Chamber that gift duties within the family apply to those gifts over $27,000 a year, which is a number I referred to. I believe that outside of the family, if there is no family link, they apply to gifts over $10,000 in 1 year. I would not want to be accused of misleading the Committee, so I wanted to clarify that at the outset.

I will go back to clause 9, which I am sure the Chair is concerned that I do. Clause 9 is about the Registrar-General of Land, who is authorised and directed to make entries in the registers under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Section 4 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 states: “There must be a Registrar-General of Land, appointed under the State Sector Act 1988.”, and that person must be a barrister and solicitor of the High Court, which is important. This is a particularly important part that I would like to discuss. The Registrar-General of Land, in exercising or performing the powers and duties of the registrar, must have regard to the following objectives: ensuring an efficient and effective system for registering dealings in land; managing the risk of fraud or improper dealings; ensuring public confidence in the land title system; and ensuring the integrity of the register and the right to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act.

There is some concern—and my colleague Sue Moroney raised some of these points—that if we have not got a proper description of the land, and it appears that there may be 0.4 of a hectare missing from the description of the land in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010, then that potentially undermines public confidence in the land title system, and it may, in fact, undermine the maintenance of the integrity of the register. We may find the need to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. I think we have approached with some jocularity the question of this missing parcel of land. But in terms of the duties of the Registrar-General of Land, I think it is very important that we do get to the bottom of this. We need some clarity. We would not want to put a public servant in a difficult position, or in a more difficult position than he or she already finds themselves, under the current Government. I think that it is important that the member in charge of this bill does give us some clarity on that anomaly between the description of the land before it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the description of the land after it came back from that committee, so that the Registrar-General of Land is able to properly fulfil his or her duties as set out in the Land Transfer Act 1952.

I think there is a problem in ensuring confidence in land title systems. I think it is important that to retain public confidence in the land title system, we make sure that when public land is transferred from one form of ownership to another, or is vested in the way it is in this bill, that the land is properly accounted for, and is properly valued. We have a problem with a piece of legislation that is going through the House at the moment making amendments to the Crown Pastoral Land Act, and that is in reference to pastoral leases in the South Island High Country, where by devaluing the rent that the Crown charges on that land, the National Government is devaluing that Crown-owned land—in fact, devaluing a State asset. Given that for that particular State asset we do have a process by which it is privatised, we need to ensure public confidence in the land title system, and we need to make sure that the public can have confidence that the Crown is actually valuing that land appropriately, so that when that land is privatised, the Crown can realise the true value of that land. That land belongs to 4.4 million New Zealanders.

Those 4.4 million New Zealanders ought to receive the true benefit of the value of that land. But what we have seen for a long time now—and I am prepared to accept that the situation at the moment is bad enough as it is, but this Government is making it even worse—is a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few. I believe that something like 28 landowners who have received land under tenure review have sold on small portions of that land for massive profits. Those profits have gone to those landowners, not to the Crown.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can we get back to clause 9?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The reason why I bring that up, Mr Chairperson, is that the powers of the Registrar-General of Land, referred to in clause 9, require the Registrar-General to ensure that there is public confidence in the land title system and to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the register. This particular legislation, I think, is excellent.

The member in the chair, David Bennett, is nodding his head and looking rather pleased with himself. He has got a bit of a Cheshire cat grin on his face, but let us be honest—this is not a Government bill. This is a local bill. If this were a Government bill, this would be called the “Parana Park (Sell it Off to the Lowest Bidder so They Can Make the Money Out of It) Bill”. That is what would be going on. Thank goodness the Hamilton City Council has brought this bill to the House! The member is doing a fine job of representing his local electorate and bringing this bill to the House, on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. This legislation ensures that a public asset remains in public hands. I think it does an excellent job of ensuring public confidence in the lands title system, and it ensures the maintenance of the integrity of the register. I have no doubt that there will be no claim to compensation as long as we figure out where that 0.4 of a hectare has got to. It is very important that we find that.

Clause 9(2) states that the Registrar-General must: “(a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land; and (b) enter on the computer register the words Recreation reserve subject to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”. Before this bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee it had the words “without fee”, but now “without fee” has been struck out and it states “on application”. In fact, even in the commentary on the bill the select committee has said that to align the bill with the Land Transfer Act 1952 it believes that the issuing of computer registers must be undertaken on an application basis and accompanied by the relevant fee. This will, of course, mean an increase in costs for the Hamilton City Council, and we all know what happens when councils have to increase their costs. They pass those costs on to the ratepayers. Who are the ratepayers? They are ordinary, hard-working Kiwis who already have to face massive increases to their costs of living whether they are at the supermarket, at the doctors, at after-hours care, or at the petrol pump. In all manners of life, we are seeing massive increases in the cost of living under this National Government, and this will be just one more thing that will push rates up even further.

I know that ratepayers all across the country have to scrounge around looking in their bank accounts to see whether they have the money to pay those rates bills every quarter. The change that the select committee has made to clause 9 will increase costs for the Hamilton City Council, and those costs will be passed on to ratepayers in Hamilton City. I bet that they will be coming to their local member and asking: “Why did you allow an increase in costs to the Hamilton City Council, and why did you allow that cost to be passed on to us, your constituents and the ratepayers in your electorate? Our costs are high enough already.” That is what they will be saying to David Bennett. Ratepayers will be saying to him that when they go to the supermarket their costs have increased, when they go to the petrol pump their costs have increased, and when they visit the doctor their costs have increased. Now, because of this bill, they have one more cost to deal with.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I will take a short call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I was hopeful that the member in the chair, David Bennett, would rise to speak. This is becoming quite a serious matter. This is the second week that we have been debating this bill, and we are very anxious to get it through its stages, as I know the good people of Hamilton are.

I see some clarification is being given to the member in the chair, and I think this will be helpful, but I am concerned that under clause 9(2)(b) there will be an entry on the computer register of the recreational reserve, subject to the passing of this bill after its third reading. We have a dispute—it is not a bitter dispute; it is an anomaly—with the footprint size of the Parana Park reserve. There is 0.4 hectares missing. That is worrying if we are to finesse the bill this evening. I can see the member in the chair now has clarification. We cannot have this registered as a recreational reserve by the Hamilton City Council, as is able to happen under clause 9(2)(b), if we do not know the actual size of the footprint of this park. We are not prepared to go further with this bill until that is clarified in the Committee.

This matter is becoming quite serious. We are quite prepared to give a call to the member in the chair. I thought he would sort this out—[Interruption] He has had 2 weeks. Labour members were accused of filibustering last time we debated this bill. We were concerned that the actual size of this park is incorrect. As lawmakers, we cannot deal seriously with legislation before us, without it being seen as a bit of a mockery, if we are talking about the wrong size of the park.

This park is being gifted to the people of Hamilton, and we in Labour say that we will protect the assets built up by past generations so that Kiwis can own their own future. This is all part of an asset that belongs to Kiwis; it belongs to all New Zealanders. I have been to Parana Park with my children, and I will go back there. But this recreational reserve cannot be registered until we know what we are registering. We know it is Parana Park, but for goodness’ sake, around the edges there is 0.4 hectares missing. Mr Chairperson Roy, you are a farmer and you know what 0.4 hectares is; I am not very sure myself. It may seem inconsequential and trivial, but it is not inconsequential and trivial to lawmakers to make sure that we are talking about the right thing.

I can see that the member sponsoring the bill on behalf of Hamilton City Council now has some clarification from the survey maps. I am sure the Registrar-General of Land, who is authorised and directed under this very provision in clause 9, will want to make sure that this issue never comes back to the Committee. We do not want it to come back to the Committee in the future. We do not want to debate it again as a local bill because we need to correct the record. It is as simple as that.

We have got to a bit of a breakdown here. We want to make sure, before we support this bill—because it is a wonderful bill for Hamilton—that we are protecting the assets that George Parr donated. Labour believes they ought to be protected and never hocked off. We will not allow that. We want the children of future generations to enjoy Parana Park in its fullness.

We seek clarification on that clause. I do not think we can proceed to debate on clause 10, in the interests of trying to get through this Committee stage, until we have clarification. I do not think I take it so seriously as to want to recall the Speaker. It is not a breakdown, but we need some clarification. We are simply entreating the member in the chair, who is getting his head around the previous land records with the Registrar-General of Land—perhaps we could call the Registrar-General of Land, and not the Speaker, to the Chair.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I move, That the question be now put.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : I will take a quick call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Although we have treated with jocularity this whole issue of where the 0.4 of a hectare disappeared to, there have been such incidences. There was a very recent incident up north where a faulty survey was done on a parcel of land—on land that was meant to be a reserve—similar to Parana Park. Surveyors did not locate the correct peg, and as a result quite a bit of land was shaved off the reserve. Since then houses have been built on that land, so where a peg should have indicated a boundary of this reserve up north, at Ōtito Bay in Matapōuri in Northland, there is now someone’s lounge sitting right where that survey peg should be.

We make jocular remarks about this issue, but that is a case where land, just as with Parana Park, has been lost for good. I suspect that was also what happened at Parana Park—that there had been some sort of surveying error and as a result the boundary changed. Some of the land that George Parr gifted in its totality back in the 1920s was shaved off and quite possibly, although I do not know the area myself, someone else’s lounge is sitting where a survey peg should be and those people are watching TV right where the boundary is.

That is quite serious because the incident up north has involved millions of dollars, the case has gone to the High Court, and it is being appealed. There are issues with the land that was inadvertently taken. There has been quite a legal and bureaucratic process to get the whole issue sorted out. It still has not been sorted out, and we will probably see people at the Court of Appeal before the year is out, trying to sort out this whole issue. It is a shame, and we would hate this to happen to Parana Park as well.

The point is that shonky surveys happen. They then get registered under the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. Those people are not infallible; they do make mistakes. Unfortunately, a loss of land is the result. As I have said, it appears that that was the case with Parana Park. As has been said, George Parr decided back in the 1920s to gift this land in its totality. I must say that Pūtikitiki is its real name; we must get that in. Pūtikitiki was gifted, but unfortunately not all of it has been enjoyed by the good people of Hamilton at this stage.

That was my short contribution, but I think it is a serious issue. We do not want to see other parcels of land accidentally having bits cut off, particularly in this case where there is a reserve and people are not able to enjoy it to its fullest extent. Kia ora.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I will take a short call to resolve some of the issues that have vexed the Committee over the last few days in regard to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. But, first of all, I thank everyone for their great interest in Parana Park, Hamilton. I take great offence to all those comments about Hamilton not being a growing city, and I reiterate the strength of our city and the beautiful place that Parana Park is. I challenge all parliamentarians to go and be part of Parana Park at some point.

I think Kelvin Davis explained very well both the history of what we are dealing with and the issue that was raised by David Shearer. He hit the nail on the head in his explanation of what could have happened. Essentially, in preparing this bill we sought advice from the Hamilton City Council about what the correct title would be. The council sent an email, describing in three bullet points the total quantum that Mr Shearer so diligently worked out, as he was the one spending most of the time in this Chamber 2 weeks ago looking at the information.

However, that description is an old description, based on the original title, and the legislation has been amended, as members will see in clause 3 in the inserted text, to reflect the computer-generated title, which is the most accurate title that is available and the title that readers would see generated if they went into the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Effectively, there is a change in land area under that entry, and it was wrongly described in the first instance through the original certificate of title. The more modern title, which is computer-generated in the register, reflects what is now in the bill. So the bill represents what we have as the best record for that title.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thank the member for his explanation, but I wonder whether he could table the documentation that supports that information, so that other members of Parliament may have access to it.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I seek leave to table, first of all, the email from Alex Kay, Leeanne O’Brien, and Kemble Pudney, from the Hamilton City Council, regarding the definition, and also the entry in the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952, which shows both the computer-generated version and the older version.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I guess I will just wrap up—well, maybe not wrap up—the debate; there might be more calls to come. Who knows? But I thank the member who has drafted—the member responsible for this bill. I cannot get that phrase right. The member responsible for this bill—I think I probably have difficulty using “responsible” and “the member” in one sentence. Look, I am trying to describe why I have been constantly tripping over referring to David Bennett as the member responsible for the bill, but of course he is responsible, and I will try to make sure I get that right from here on. I thank him for that explanation, because I think it is really important that we get it right.

I will be interested in looking at the documents that have been tabled, because I want to make sure that we have not somehow lost some land in cyberspace somewhere, in the process of the land going from having a paper description to having a computer-generated description. I want to make sure that that has not occurred. But I guess the member is saying that these days we perhaps have more accurate techniques of making sure we get the land area correct.

It is important to have had clause 9 clarified. It is very timely because, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out, clause 9(2)(a) gives the power to the Registrar-General of Land, once this bill has become an Act, to “issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land;”. We on this side of the Chamber wanted to be assured that the description of the land was accurate before that took place, so I thank the member for taking time to brief the Committee. We could see that Mr Bennett was making very good use of information from the officials to make sure that he was correctly briefed during the debate, to avoid giving us a guess or just having a go at answering our queries. He actually collected the information before him, and I think that it is fantastic that he could do that in a very timely—

Grant Robertson: Responsible.

SUE MORONEY: —and responsible manner. We on this side of the Chamber can now fully support—well, I can certainly speak on behalf of Labour members, but not the entire side of the Chamber—the clause, and say that we are now satisfied. We can proceed to vote in favour of clause 9, knowing that we are not telling the Registrar-General—he or she; I am not sure whether it is a male or a female at the moment—through legislation to create a new computer register for this piece of land, and not undermining the integrity of the register by having the wrong description for that piece of land. David Shearer, who is just joining the debate again for this evening, will be really pleased to know that. He first picked up the discrepancy in the previous clause on this issue, and I know that he has been deeply concerned about it because he has raised it with me constantly over the past 2 weeks. He has said: “Sue, where is that land? Make sure that we find it!”. I am very pleased to be able to report to David Shearer—and I am sure he has been following the debate closely, anyway—that we have now been assured of that, and that we can go ahead and vote for this clause. It will be on the basis, however, that the drafting error—the Act is called the “Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”—is corrected before we come to the third reading, which I know we are all looking forward to. We want to make sure that the date of 2011 is inserted in clause 9 and other clauses that, by a pure drafting mistake, refer to 2010.

Without further ado, I am happy to say that Labour can now support clause 9. Our questions have been answered, and we look forward to the rest of the debate on this very important bill.

• Clause 9 agreed to.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : Well, this is it. It looks as if we will be wrapping up the Committee stage of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I could not let clause 10 go without coming back to the main purpose, which is the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I guess this clause really comes back to the main issue.

In repealing that Act it is quite sad, really, that it will now be the last legislative record of the link between Parana Park and George Parr. I understand—I understand entirely—that that Act needs to be repealed so that this more modernised and flexible bill can become law in its place. It will give Hamilton City Council the certainty it needs in moving forward and managing this piece of land. I think that is very important, and I do not want to take away from that, at all.

But I reflect on the fact that sometimes when we repeal Acts of Parliament, we pose the problem of taking away part of the history of what has gone before—in particular, the gifting of this piece of land. I think that in the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958, which is being repealed by clause 10 of this bill, there was reference to the last will and testament of George Parr. An earlier clause actually removes from this legislation the requirement that the land be subject to his last will and testament. I can understand the reasons for that, but it with some sadness, I think, that we remove the Parr family name, for ever, from legislation in relation to this piece of land.

Of course, that does not mean that the Parr name will be removed for ever; nor is it only in the information about Parana Park. I am sure that in the Hamilton City Council library the entire story of Parana Park and its history will remain. I know that the Parliamentary Library now has quite a lot of information on the history of Parana Park and its gifting, and in particular on George Parr and what he brought to the city of Hamilton. So I know that the history will not be lost in writing, but certainly that link between George Parr and this piece of land will no longer exist in a legislative sense.

I feel that that is a little bit sad, because George Parr, as we know, was a man of great vision. He had the vision and the kindness to set aside this land for the children of our city. It was a great thing that George Parr did. By gifting this land to the city he has created a place, Parana Park, where many thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people over the course of time have gathered precious family memories because of his generosity.

If that land had stayed in private hands, that would have never taken place. All of those memories that members of Parliament themselves have been able to offer in this debate, which have been memories precious to their own families, would never have been created on that land right beside the Waikato River if it was still in private hands. I would like Government members to reflect on how important public access to those pieces of land is. They make a difference to our families and they make a difference to our history. George Parr was a person who understood that. He privately owned that land. It was land that had been confiscated, but I am not even sure whether he was aware of that history, because he was not the first owner of that land post the confiscation from Tainui. So he may not have realised that what he was doing was returning to the people land that had come from the people. It is quite a remarkable thing that he did.

Clause 10 repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958, which is the last piece of legislation that will record George Parr’s generosity and make reference to his last will and testament. That is a little sad. I understand the reasons, but I take the opportunity in debating clause 10 to make sure that the contribution of the Parr family, and in particular George Parr, to our city is not forgotten.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Clause 10 refers to the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. My colleague Sue Moroney was absolutely right in saying it is with some sadness that a line is being drawn legislatively under the connection with George Parr and the Parr family. It has to be said that through the debate we have had on this bill, the Labour members who have been taking part have grown quite a huge respect for George Parr, because he was man who was politically active, he had a vision for Hamilton, and he was engaged with his community.

George Parr worked alongside his community. He wanted to make New Zealand a better place, especially for children. That was particularly shown by the fact that a children’s convalescent home was included in the Parana Park space. George Parr was a man who really wanted to share his wealth. I suppose that he wanted to pay his fair share towards, and be part of, society, especially for the benefit of children. Parana Park was a space for children to play, but it was also a space where children’s health was taken care of and their well-being was looked after. Members on this side of the Chamber feel a particular affinity towards that. Labour members are absolutely committed to working alongside our community and making New Zealand a better place, especially for our children.

In Parana Park we have an asset that has been built up by past generations. It was built up when it was in private hands, by George Parr and his family, and then it was handed over to the public. The Hamilton City Council has maintained that asset and built it up so that it is part of the Hamilton community and will be part of the community’s future. On this side of the Chamber we also believe in protecting our assets—protecting those assets that have been built up by past generations—so that Kiwis can own their future, because that is such an important part of building a strong community and a strong economy in New Zealand.

George Parr wanted to make sure that the New Zealand economy worked for everybody. He had a vision. He had a vision for a number of things. As chairman of the chamber of commerce in Hamilton, he was working hard to build the economy in Hamilton. But he had also some projects that would have contributed massively to the economy in the upper North Island. One of those projects was a rail service between Hamilton and Auckland.

Sue Moroney: Kāwhia and Raglan.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It was from Kāwhia and Raglan to Hamilton. The other project he was particularly interested in was a pipeline to get fresh water from the Waikato River over to Waiuku. Neither of those projects has actually happened, but there was a man with a plan and a vision to make the economy work for everybody. It was a plan to create jobs and opportunities, not just for people back at the turn of the 20th century in Hamilton and New Zealand but also for their children and their grandchildren.

That is what Labour is all about as well. We want to be able to go out to New Zealanders and say that the economy works for them and that the Government is able to create jobs and opportunities for them, their children, and their grandchildren. We want to make sure that everybody gets a fair go, and, just like George Parr, we want to make sure that everybody pays their fair share. George Parr wanted to make sure that New Zealand was going forward. He would be dismayed at the pace at which New Zealand is going backwards at the moment under this National Government.

George Parr was a man of vision, a man with a plan, and the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton City Council. He is the man whose legacy we are, in a way, drawing a line under with clause 10, which repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act. That is the last legislative reference to George Parr, a man who wanted to make sure that the economy was going forward and who had a plan to get the economy going. That approach is quite different, it has to be said, from the approach of the current Government.

In vesting the Parana Park in Hamilton City Council and handing over the children’s convalescent home to the people of Hamilton, George Parr was a man who was so in touch with his community’s needs. He was completely in touch with ordinary Kiwis. I bet that many of the families who needed to send their children to the convalescent home would have been struggling to make ends meet, in just the same way that ordinary Kiwis today are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of living when they go to the supermarket, when they go to the doctor, when they want after-hours care, and when they fill up the car at the petrol pump. They are seeing costs going up and they are struggling to make ends meet in the same way that the parents who sent their children to the convalescent home that George Parr donated to the city of Hamilton would have been struggling back then.

George Parr was a man who was working for the people of Hamilton as well as for the people of New Zealand. He was working for them and their families and he was working for their future. He could have handed over that land to his mates, he could have sold it, or he could have kept it in his family—kept it for the few. But, no, he handed it over so that it was an asset for the many. He was not a man who was interested in just looking after his mates, which is what this Government is all about; he was a man who was interested in the people of Hamilton.

Although, legislatively, clause 10 of this bill brings to an end that association with George Parr and his family, it actually continues his legacy. It reassures the people of Hamilton that they have a publicly owned asset, one in which their children can play and one that will be available for everybody. Everybody will have access to it and nobody will be barred from going on to the Parana Park land, and this legislation, although it removes the reference to George Parr and repeals the 1958 Act, continues that legacy.

That is why Labour members have so enthusiastically endorsed this legislation. We want to see this Parliament get alongside ordinary New Zealanders. We are really pleased to support a bill that actually does that, because they are just so few and far between in this term of Parliament. We have seen so many bills that have transferred wealth from the many to the few, which has seen people on lower incomes marginalised, but this bill is for the people. That is why Labour members are so pleased to support it and endorse it.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.

• Clause 10 agreed to.

• Bill reported without amendment.

• Report adopted.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I move, That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand, which will amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. I am proud to bring it before the House as the local member for the electorate in which the Royal Society of New Zealand is housed. The Education and Science Committee has been considering the bill, and reported back to the House on 11 March. It recommended that the bill proceed with several amendments. I particularly thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their hard work in looking at the bill, for understanding the submissions that came to the committee, and for making the amendments they have made.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act so as to incorporate humanities into the objects and functions of the society. This was based on a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the humanities into the society, which was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities in February 2010. The bill expands the objects of the society to include the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of the humanities in addition to science and technology. The functions of the society will also be expanded to include functions relating to the humanities such as fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities, and encouraging, promoting, and recognising excellence in the humanities. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean also that people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society, and that people who have achieved distinction in research or the advancement of the humanities can be elected as fellows of the society. The society will also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology.

The Education and Science Committee recommended a change to the definition of humanities in clause 5(2) of this bill, by omitting specific mentions of English and American studies. Members of the committee may choose to share with the House some of the logic in relation to that change. As I understand it, it is to do with duplication, in that English is dealt with under languages, and perhaps American studies is dealt with under cultural studies. Questions have been asked in the process of this bill about some other subject areas that are not mentioned under the definition of humanities. Although I retain an open mind, as the member sponsoring this bill, as to exactly how we should describe the humanities—and I am more than happy to talk to people as we move into the Committee stage about whether we have that definition right—it is important to note that, in addition to traditional science and technology, the social sciences are already part of the Royal Society’s work. I think social sciences will include a number of the disciplines people have been concerned about not being specifically mentioned in the list of humanities at the moment. It could, perhaps, include political science, and that is one example.

I am, as I said, more than happy as we move into the Committee stage to make sure we have a full consensus in the House about the way in which we describe the humanities in the bill. Most members of the House would acknowledge that when legislation has an exhaustive list of any particular thing under a definition, what is not there becomes a concern to people. The committee has done its best to come up with a coherent list, but we need to make sure we have consensus on that. We can talk about that as we go into the Committee stage if members of the Committee of the whole House would like to do that.

In the submission process of the select committee there was a submission from the Royal Society’s Wellington branch, and it is worth noting that the Royal Society’s Wellington branch expressed some concerns about bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. It is a good thing when bills are sent to select committees, which from time to time the current Government has not done, and this is an example of where even on a non-controversial bill there was some debate. It is important that we recognise the good faith of those people who make submissions and we can talk about the concerns over this bill now. The objections the Royal Society’s Wellington branch raised were essentially around its concern that by bringing the humanities into the objects and functions of the society there would be some dilution of the focus on science and technology. That is a concern that people who have been working in the framework of the Royal Society for many years may well have. There was concern from some branch members that the significance of science may reduce in the activities of the society. It is clear that the committee members have considered this and decided they are comfortable with where things have reached. Certainly members of the Royal Society itself feel that the process of making the decision was one that was taken seriously. The council of the Royal Society debated it thoroughly, and over quite a long period—a year or more—worked out how to make sure their incorporation of the humanities still allowed for sciences to flourish.

On a personal level, I think the incorporation of the humanities is very important, because if New Zealand really is going to grow its economy we need to bring together the innovation that comes from the humanities and social sciences and marry that up with hard-core sciences and technology. Sir Paul Callaghan, who spoke here recently at a Speakers’ Science Forum and who is a fellow of the Royal Society, spoke very much, as he has in the past, about the important issue of the merging together of the clever minds of New Zealanders—the people who brought us Weta Digital, and so on; the designers; and the people who can conceptualise design. Bringing those people together with the hard scientists is the way we will get innovation in our country. When we look at the objects of the Royal Society, as they currently stand, I think that idea is understood. Although I can appreciate that some people involved in the Royal Society may have concerns about the dilution of science and technology, I believe this bill will actually strengthen the Royal Society by bringing in humanities and by broadening out the objects and the functions of the society to take into account the humanities. It will actually start to bring together some of the synergies that have been mentioned.

I also note, because there was some concern in the Royal Society’s Wellington branch about whether there had been sufficient consultation on incorporating the humanities into the society, that the council of the Royal Society discussed this matter as far back as March 2009. Incorporation was discussed at the fellows’ AGM in November 2009, then found its way through by late November 2009 to be formally adopted, and by January 2010 to be announced. The memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society was signed on 9 February 2010. A process was gone through by which fellows and those involved in the Royal Society council were able to discuss this issue, and I think the decision taken was certainly the right one.

There is also a slight change being made by the select committee around the appointment of members to the academy council. The process of changing the academy council was one that, again, went through some significant discussion. It is important, obviously, when one changes the objects and functions of an organisation like the Royal Society that we are able to have the council operate in a way that goes along with those changes in the functions. But, again, in the interests of democracy it is worth noting that the fellows of the society had a vote on this and 97 of the fellows were in favour and just two against.

Moana Mackey: What about the 1 percent?

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it was 97 actual people and two against. It was not a percentage. The scientist sitting beside me is always thinking in percentage terms. Overwhelmingly, the fellows of the society were comfortable with the decision to change the structure of the council. The Education and Science Committee has just slightly amended the wording that relates to the appointment of a person as a member of the society’s council by the society’s regional constituent organisation, just so that makes sense.

It gives me great pleasure to move the second reading of this bill. The bill will be an advance forward. Members on this side of the House are committed to New Zealand being an innovative country; a country that supports education, science, and technology; and a country that invests in education, science, and technology. We think that that is how we will provide opportunities for future generations of New Zealanders, and not by cutting funding to science, not by taking science advisers out of schools, and not by ignoring the evidence and research that is important in policy making and elsewhere. We see this bill as a step forward, an advance for the Royal Society, and one that, I hope, all members of the House will be able to support.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take a brief call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and it will be relatively brief because it would be fair to say that Mr Robertson has canvassed all the issues that need to be canvassed.

I think it is important to emphasise that the change being sought was very much at the request of the Royal Society, which currently consists of the scientific and technological community. I would like the branches of the society to consider the implications of that. It was scientists and technologists who requested a broadening of their own scope and purposes to include the humanities. They recognised that the existing purposes of the society were simply too narrow, so they have incorporated the humanities. That lines up with the general view that prevailed in the funding arrangements for the Marsden Fund. Again, that was almost exclusively, prior to that, convened by the scientific community.

So this measure was, in effect, the scientific community reaching out to broaden the scope of research. It is not entirely surprising that that would be the case. In smaller nations, like New Zealand, royal societies tend to cover both science and the humanities. In larger nations, like the United Kingdom, it would, of course, be somewhat different. In our case it is necessary that the one society covers the full range of academic endeavour. So it was a somewhat unusual situation that the society, which is very significantly Government funded and, indeed, administers a number of Government funds, had to request its local member—its head office being based in Wellington Central—to advance a bill. But this is perhaps one of those occasions where it is quite a good thing that the public can see collaboration across the Parliament around a common cause.

Moana Mackey: That’s right.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I note that an Opposition spokesperson on science and innovation is present in the House. It would be fair to say there is a broad consensus around what is appropriate in this area. I note, of course, that we clearly have our small differences from time to time, but they tend to be not so much about purposes but extent, if I could put it that way. I guess we in the Government have to deal with the reality of fiscal constraints, whereas Opposition parties can perhaps take a slightly freer range about things, and, indeed, are inclined to do precisely that.

It is interesting that the previous Government was in office for 9 years and had plenty of opportunities to do all sorts of things.

Moana Mackey: R and D tax credits.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: During a time of amazingly large surpluses—$10 billion—it took the previous Government until 2009 to introduce some research and development tax credits.

Moana Mackey: We didn’t require Crown research institutes to give their money back to the Government.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have noted what the interjector said just then. Labour did it just at the point of the global financial crisis. Labour members, of course, seemingly are still operating in the paradigm of $10 billion surpluses. I would like to remind them, from time to time, that the world has changed just a little, and it is probably necessary to change policies just a little to accommodate that reality.

I also remind those members—all members, because I think this is something we should all be able to all celebrate—that from 2008 through to 2010 there was a significant gain in the total share of GDP of New Zealand that is spent on science and innovation, or, under the more traditional nomenclature, “R and D”. It went from 1.19 percent to 2008, which was the last year, I think, of the previous Government, to 1.30 percent in 2010. That is about an 8 percent increase at a time of economic constraint. It is significant, I think, that in a time of economic constraint businesses, universities, and the Government have recognised the need to drive up that share, compared with what was, one would have to fairly say, reasonably halcyon times for the economy. That was not due to the previous Government, of course, but rather to global economic conditions, and the previous Government was not able to achieve the sorts of gains that were needed to be made.

I will not quibble about these things too much. It is possibly inappropriate to do so to excess during this debate. I just draw these points to the attention of the House. I say to members in the House that those statistics are from Statistics New Zealand and are therefore highly reliable. They came out yesterday, I note.

I am very happy to share in the collaboration in the House to advance this bill. The changes that have been made are perfectly appropriate. They are more general in nature than the bill as first presented, and I think we would all agree with that. I also note the other changes. I guess we can take the point about the nature of this bill by how quickly it was resolved by the Education and Science Committee, and by the length of the report, which covers four short paragraphs. It would be fair to say that this bill will be passed by unanimity and it will go through the Committee stage smoothly, thence to the third reading.

I join with my colleagues in the House in supporting this bill, and, indeed, supporting the endeavours of all of our scientific community, and other researchers in the humanities, for their hard work over recent years to improve the understanding of the importance of science and innovation in our wider community. I think everyone would concede that there has been a significant change over the last 2 years, and the data demonstrated the reality of that. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : As the Minister said, there is some agreement on the importance of science and innovation in our society. The question, as he quite rightly says, is the emphasis and how we go about it. I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to address the bill before us. What I did agree with the Minister on was that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was brought about by the Royal Society approaching Parliament. It did not come from Parliament; it was at the society’s request.

We need to remind ourselves that the Royal Society is one of the most pre-eminent, prestigious organisations that we have in New Zealand. It is a body of real academic learning and of excellence. It is something that we hold up as being at the top of the pyramid in terms of learning. I will give a couple of statistics to back that up. The Royal Society is independent, it is a national academy, and it has 1,200 members, 344 elected fellows, 10 regional branches, and 60 constituent scientific and technological societies. Nearly 20,000 scientists, technologists, and technicians are represented by the society. In other words, the society does a remarkable job. One of the things we have benefited from—and I note the chair of the Education and Science Committee is here—is the sponsoring and bringing of scientists to Parliament. This has been very well-attended by members of Parliament who have come along and listened to some of the more innovative science that is coming out of our institutions right across the board, be they Crown research institutes, universities, or the like.

This bill was given a pretty thorough reading by the Education and Science Committee. Although it appears uncontroversial, there were a number of submissions on it. The bulk of the submissions focused on the question of bringing the humanities into what they believed was a pure scientific organisation. The committee went through the bill quite carefully. We brought what is now the Ministry of Science and Innovation back twice to discuss some of the submissions, to make sure that they were given a fair reading, and I think we did that. At the end of the day, this is something that has been decided on by the Royal Society and I think we must respect its wishes.

I do not think—and we will get to this in the Committee stage, when we look at the bill more closely—that the various branches that are affiliated to the Royal Society have the constitutional ability to change what was the real wish of the Royal Society itself. As I said, we did look at changing a couple of the aspects of the bill—for example, to take out the clause on American studies and compress the definition of what constituted humanities. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out, this issue has gone through quite a large degree of consultation with the Royal Society. It was voted on back in 2009 and passed earlier last year, and it has come to the point where we can discuss it in the Committee of the whole House. I do not think there will be too many objections to what it says.

I want to touch on a couple of points mentioned by the Minister in his speech, as I do not feel I can let them go. I will not dispute the information from Statistics New Zealand, unlike the Prime Minister in his answers in question time today when he refuted what Statistics New Zealand was saying. There has been an increase in research and development take-up, particularly amongst our businesses. The real question for me, and I do not think the Minister actually answered this, is how much of that was due to his new initiatives—the various vouchers. As we have now waited nearly 2 years for these vouchers and transfers to take effect, there is no way that he can claim credit for those vouchers somehow lifting the amount of research and development spending by private firms by 10 percent. There is absolutely no way he can do so.

Let us look at this initiative, which was from 2008. We must remember that during most of 2008 we were under the much more visionary plan of having 15 percent tax credits on research and development spending. Most of that increase was due to the enthusiasm of those companies. They were incredibly enthusiastic about a 15 percent tax credit on their research and development spending. I will mention one company in particular—Gallagher Group in Hamilton—

Sue Moroney: A fine company.

DAVID SHEARER: It is a great company that has been going a long time. It said to me that the research and development tax credit allowed it to take, first, more risk, and, second, it made the company think creatively about what was research and development and what was not, and to be much more strategic about it.

That typifies much of the feedback I have had from companies about a 15 percent tax credit. Instead, we now have a bunch of technology grants that the Minister crows about, but, when it comes down to it, of the companies that applied for these grants, 60 percent of them were turned down. That is an extraordinarily wasteful use of taxpayers’ resources. The Minister fails to understand that he has shifted from a tax credit that would have promoted companies and helped them make real changes to the way in which they do research and development, to simply giving them a handout. The Government is now giving companies the extra spending for research and development, and what are those companies doing? A lot of them are transferring the money they have been spending and shifting it on to other things. They are transferring the current money on to other things.

I want to bring up one further point on this matter. When I started I wanted to speak on this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill completely from the point of view of the Royal Society, but I cannot sit here and listen to the Minister talk about a step change that, in fact, is nothing but a step backwards. Let us look at what we could have had. We could have had a 15 percent tax credit that would have—

Colin King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second reading. The member is well wide of the mark.

Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance. There is a Standing Order that says that we should confine our comments to the bill, but it is quite interesting. The member is rebutting some of the comments made earlier. The member has a minute left, but I say now to future speakers, because I have the bill in front of me and I have been reading it quite closely, that tax credits are not actually mentioned. From now on, subsequent speakers will confine themselves to the bill.

DAVID SHEARER: I will conclude on this argument. As I am sure that the Minister now feels suitably chastised about his ridiculous claims, I will get back to the bill. The Royal Society is trying to bring humanities and the scientific community together. It is something that has been done in both Scotland and Canada. It has not been attempted in England or Australia, where they have very separate societies, but from what I can understand from the Australian experience they wish they could have this sort of a bill rather than the one they have. As Grant Robertson quite rightly put it, we need to put our science, our best designers, and our humanities together to grow New Zealand. This is one way of doing it. I think that the Royal Society has been visionary in the way in which it sees the role for both the Royal Society and the prosperity of New Zealand in regard to the way in which we will be growing this economy, which is about bringing the best of our talent and our brains together under this bill.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : In the spirit of the rebuttal of debate, and not unmindful of the Deputy Speaker’s recent ruling, I will take a moment to remind the member who has just resumed his seat, David Shearer, of an Education and Science Committee hearing I attended as a regular member in the previous Parliament at which the then Minister of Research, Science and Technology, Mr Maharey, was most defensive about the spend on research in New Zealand. It would behove David Shearer to acknowledge that the party he now represents in Parliament and that he speaks for on science matters had every opportunity over 9 years to do what this Government has done in less than 3 years.

I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Science Committee that held hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They were constructive hearings. There was broad agreement across the committee and across the House that the bill should proceed. The bill has been introduced at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. There really is little more to be said without wasting the time of the House, other than to reiterate that the bill has wide support. I support the bill and I urge its speedy passage through its second reading.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : Kia ora tātou. The Greens are pleased to continue to support the progress of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill through the House—in part as a show of support for the organisation that the bill seeks to expand, strengthen, and deepen. The Royal Society of New Zealand has an honourable and long history of doing significant good work for this country, as it has done elsewhere, and I am pleased to be a member—albeit a rather inactive member—of the society.

I think the general level of support for the bill is given notice by the fact that it came through the select committee process virtually unscathed and with very little amendment, except for the proposal to drop from clause 5(2) the specific reference to American studies. Try as we might, we in the Education and Science Committee could not quite understand why American studies was so unique and different from other cultural studies, philosophy, law, or politics—or many of the other elements that collectively we call the humanities—that it should warrant its own statement and place in the bill. Perhaps those who speak American or spell American culture with a “k” could explain why American studies was included, but, frankly, it was unnecessary.

Putting that issue aside, I recall that in the first reading I reflected on my own academic history, having both an undergrad arts degree and a postgraduate science degree. It put me in a position perhaps to appreciate the significant value, and indeed the necessity, of bringing closer together those two sets of disciplines—science and the humanities—in terms of personal development and, critically, for economic development for the many aspirations this country has. We will be stronger for having an organisation that incorporates the humanities in it.

There are so many disciplines that are key to our well-being, particularly given that we are a country that still earns a great deal of its living from primary production and from attracting people to visit us in order to enjoy our very beautiful—still stunningly beautiful—but also very fragile and threatened natural world, our ecosystems, our environment, and our outdoors. The disciplines that are primarily responsible for the management of the underpinnings to our primary production and tourism are diverse and multiple. They include geography, resource management, ecosystem management, and some branches of ecology—and particularly human ecology—which are all by their very definition, and certainly by their practice, disciplines that require people who are able to absorb, comprehend, analyse, and, critically, utilise a very broad range of information and world views. Our Royal Society, which is central to the scientific effort in this country, amalgamating with the humanities can only strengthen that.

The best decisions in the multiple disciplines I mentioned that are all critically involved in land use, production, and environmental protection are made by people who are able to understand scientific data and information, even if those people are non-specialists, at least to absorb the key lessons that science can give to us. Those people can also grapple with—at least at a general level, again, if not at a specialist level—the considerable complexity of economic and social issues and the interactions between the economy as a set of social relationships and the broader set of social relationships that make up our communities and our country. It is important that people making key decisions understand that their world view is unique to them—and perhaps collectively to a group with a similar background, education, and life experience—but often different from, for example, indigenous perspectives or the perspectives or world views of other minority groups, to the degree that we can overcome the understanding between the dominant world view and another world view and make better-informed, better-quality decisions about the management of our productive sector and natural environment. Clearly, the Royal Society, as one of the considerable pools of collective wisdom that inform this ongoing debate and work, is a very valuable addition for humanities to come into.

In a more general view, in terms of the pursuit of science and the application of science in this country, I acknowledge that the Government has done some very useful work and made some very useful changes in the structure of research and development with the different models that now apply in terms of the Crown research institutes, funding, and research capability. Some useful changes have been made, but I do think there is still some way to go to get the optimum set of circumstances. As a country we are science poor. We do not attract, educate, graduate, and retain sufficient scientists, nor do we do so, increasingly, in the humanities. We are losing skills and knowledge rather than retaining or gaining them. Some policy settings could be improved to remedy that situation. In terms of science education, we can go right back to secondary school level.

I had the pleasure of attending ASB Polyfest last week, which was an extraordinary expression of our future, particularly in our very Polynesian Auckland City. In that context I had the opportunity to speak to some secondary school teachers, particularly science teachers. They had some very interesting views on the curriculum and on necessary changes to the curriculum. I sensed some frustration that perhaps the teachers are not being heard sufficiently about changes at that very important level—the secondary schooling of our potential science graduates—and that we are missing out. For example, nowhere in the curriculum is there adequate coverage or discussion of issues around climate change. In 2011 that is an extraordinary omission. Climate change is a reality; it is a scientific reality. It is also something that requires changes to human behaviour. So the combination of scientific effort, scientific application, and good understanding of how to motivate and affect human behaviour—to effect behavioural changes in people—is very critical to that. Some work is to be done at the secondary school level in terms of science education. At the tertiary level, we are clearly exporting scientists rather than exporting science, and that continues.

I make these comments, which are critical, in acknowledgment that I think there is some understanding of the problem within Government. But I urge the Government to move faster and to do more to ensure that we retain the scientific capacity that makes major contributions to building our society and economy and that we can continue to do so in the future.

I will touch very briefly on some of the issues that were raised by the previous speaker, Allan Peachey, about research and development. We know that members of the Royal Society have some quite strong views about the appropriate funding mechanisms both for public-good science and for private sector science. Some useful work is to be done. I think the current model is for Government support of private sector science. It is still expensive in terms of time. It is convoluted. It is difficult, particularly for smaller companies to come to grips with, and I think changes in the current model would have major economic benefits going into the future. Kia ora koutou.

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

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) : Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Chris Hipkins: We’re looking forward to this.

Hon HEATHER ROY: Yes, I am sure the member is. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. I will be taking just a brief call, because there are other equally important bills on the Order Paper tonight.

Like all other parties in the House, the ACT Party will be supporting this bill. It is a very good bill, very timely, and at the Education and Science Committee the submissions that we heard persuaded us greatly that this bill was needed. There are two main points that I took from it, one of a very practical nature and the other at a much higher level. The higher level perspective is that the humanities will now be incorporated into the Royal Society’s proceedings. I think that is long overdue. One of the submitters—I just cannot quite remember which one now—who was a physical scientist said that when he was researching or looking into any topic in his particular field, he could not, in this day and age, overlook the effect that the humanities had on even his very specific area of physical science.

The second point, which is of a very practical nature, is that the Royal Society has already effectively been including many of the humanities issues into its current work and proceedings. So the practical reason that it wanted us to address in this bill was to formalise the practice that was already occurring.

There were a variety of submissions. Something that has not been raised in the House this evening, but I am sure will be discussed more at Committee stage, was that some of the branches felt that consultation had not been adequate on this particular issue. The Royal Society did not agree to this point, but it is something that I think the Royal Society does need to be, and will be in future, very mindful of.

For those reasons, I have great pleasure in joining with the other parties in this House in supporting the member’s bill. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Ēhara i te mea he nui wāku kōrero mō te pire nei hoi anō, kai te whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o te kōrero ā wētahi atu. Mēnā he pono taku kōrero, ēhara i te mea he tino mōhio au ki ngā hōhonutanga o te Royal Societyo Aotearoa, kāo. Kāre anō au kia rongo mō tērā rōpū i ngā tau kua hipa ake ahakoa, kai roto au i te ao o te mātauranga. Hoi anō i puta te ingoa nei i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa i ngā wiki kua hipa ake, nā runga i tērā i tū te Pāti Māori i tōna pānuitanga tuatahi ki te tautoko i te mōtini, kia whakatāpirihia atu tēnei mea te humanities ki roto i ngā whāinga me ngā whakahaere o te society.

I tēnei wā e rua pea waku kōrero ki a tātou o te Whare. Tuatahi, ko te wāhanga tuarima he take nui kai reira e pā ana ki ngā whakamārama. I titiro te Education and Science Committee ki tēnei o ngā pire, anā, hei tāna me whakaae ka tika, tukuna kia haere. Ēhara i te mea he nui ngā rerekētanga ki te whakamārama i tēnei mea te humanities. Hei tā tērā komiti, he whakaae kia paku rerekē te wāhi 5(2), ki te āta titiro i te hōhonutanga o ngā whakamārama o tēnei mea te humanities. Me ki kia ūkui i ngā kōrero mō te reo Pākehā me ngā whakaakoranga o Amerika, me pērā rawa te kōrero. I roto i te reo Pākehā, ko te reo English me te American studies. E ai ki tērā komiti, he moumou tāima noa iho te kōrero mō te reo Pākehā i te mea kai roto tērā i te whakamārama whānui mō ngā momo reo. He pērā anō hoki mō te American studiesi te mea, kai reira tonu te cultural studies. Nō reira, e ai ki tā te komiti i roto i tērā whiriwhiringa, moumou tāima noa iho te tīni haere i tērā wāhanga.

Hoi anō ko tāku, ko te titiro ki ngā kōrero a te tangata nei, a Hōri Jones. Ko ia tētahi tangata ki taku mōhio, he matatau te tangata nei mō ngā whakahaere o te rōpū nei i te mea, ko ia tētahi mema o te peka o Pōneke i ngā tau e whā tekau pea kua hipa ake. Ko tētahi wāhanga, me kī, tata ki te tekau tau, ko ia tērā te perehitini o tērā rōpū. Nō reira, he tangata mōhio nei ki ngā whakahaere o te rōpū. Hei tāna, ahakoa kua pā mai ngā tikanga o Amerika ki a tātou o Aotearoa, nui noa ake te pānga o ngā tikanga Māori ki a Aotearoa nō reira, hei tāna me tāpiri tēnei mea te whakaako o ngā mea Māori ki roto i tēnei mea te cultural studies. Nō reira, kai te tino whakaae atu te Pāti Māori ki tērā momo whakaaro, me te akiaki i te Minita ki te āta titiro ki tērā take.

Me te kī anō hoki me titiro pea tātou ki te whiti tuarua o te wāhanga tuarima, arā, te wāhi whakamārama. Kei wareware i a tātōu, ko te reo Māori he reo tūturu ā-ture nei ki Aotearoa. Kei wareware i a tātou, ko te Māori Language Act o te tau 1987 i a ia e whakatau ana nō hoki, ko te reo Māori, he reo tūturu ake o Aotearoa, he mea motuhake o Aotearoa tata ki te 25 o ngā tau kua hipa ake. Nō reira, ko tā mātou ko te kī atu, ko te reo Māori he reo tūturu ake ki Aotearoa, he reo o te tangata whenua, he taonga tonu e korowaitia ana i raro i te āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāore te reo Māori e rangona ana i wāhi kē, iwi kē i tua atu o Aotearoa, pūtake mai ki konei, kōrerotia ana i konei, kei konei anake te reo Māori e kōrerotia ana. Ēngari, ka eke ki te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, he ture tērā i muri mai o te Māori Language Actēngari, kāre he paku kōrero o roto mō te āhuatanga o te reo Māori. Nā reira, ko tā mātou ko te whakatakoto i tētahi Supplementary Order Paperi te wā o te Komiti ki te kōkiri i tērā take. Nō reira, tērā take tērā.

Tuarua, kai te pīrangi au ki te whakatakoto i tetahi whakaaro e hāngai tonu ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ahakoa ngā tūtohutanga i te pānuitanga tuatahi, nāku tonu i kauhau ki roto i tēnei Whare, kāre he paku kōrero o roto mō te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i ngā akiakinga, i ngā whakanuinga o ngā take taiao, me ngā take hangarau i Aotearoa nei. Karekau. Kua kaha tohe nei mātou o te Pāti Māori me whakauru i te Tiriti o Waitangi hai whakanui i te āhuatanga o ngā mea Māori ki roto i te ao pūtaiao, ki roto i ngā mahi hangarau kia taea ai e te motu te āta titiro i ngā mea e rua e kōrerohia ake nei, nā runga i te tirohanga Māori.

Nō reira, koi nei tā mātou e āki nei. Ki a mātou he pai kē me titiro pērā rawa nā runga i te mea, i te nuinga o te wā kāore ērā take e kōrerohia ana; arā, te tirohanga o te Ao Māori ki a ia anō ki tōna ao, ka mutu, te tirohanga o te motu ki taua Ao Māori. E hia kē nei ngā momo huarahi kai mua i te aroaro kia taea e tēnei pire te whakawhānui i tōna titiro. Kia titiro whānui tēnei pire ki te āhuatanga o te mātauranga Māori, otirā, ki te whakanui i tērā momo āhuatanga. Nō reira, ko tāku tērā pea, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te kōrero mō te rangatiratanga o roto i ngā mahi pūtaiao, o roto i ngā mahi rangahau, o roto i ngā mahi pāngarau, he ao anō tērā. Nō reira, ko tā mātou ko te kī atu kāti, me titiro ki te wāhanga o te tangata whenua, me titiro ki te wāhanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i tēnei momo whiriwhiringa.

Ka mutu, he nui ngā pātai hai whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei wā ēngari ko te āki tuatahi, arā, kia hoki rā anō ki taku kōrero i te tuatahi, me titiro ki te āhuatanga o te reo Māori nā runga i tōna pūtaketanga mai i Aotearoa nei. Me titiro anō rā ki te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakawhānui tonu i te titiro ki tēnei pire. Koi nei tā mātou e āki nei. Kei reira tonu ētahi whāinga matua o roto i te Ao Māori, arā, ko te mana whenua, ko te mana tupuna, ko te whakapapa, ēnei kōrero katoa, ko te kaitiakitanga, ka taea e wai rānei te titiro ki te hōhonutanga o ēnei kaupapa. Nō reira, kāre e nui ngā kōrero i tua atu o tērā, hoi nō ko te kī atu, āe, ā te wā o te Komiti ka whakatakotohia ētahi tāpiringa kōrero hai mea wānanga mā te Whare katoa kia taea e tātou te wetewete i ēnei take hai taua wā. Nō reira, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us this evening. It is not as though I have much to contribute to the debate on this bill, but I merely want to follow up aspects that others before me have commented on. To be honest, I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the Royal Society of New Zealand—none at all. In years past, I had not heard about that organisation, even though I was involved in the education sector. But the name of this society has emerged in the discussions during the past weeks, and as a consequence the Māori Party got up at the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to support the notion of incorporating the humanities into the objectives and functions of the society.

At this stage, I have two points, perhaps, to make in my address to us of the House. The first one relates to clause 5. It contains an important matter relating to definitions. The Education and Science Committee examined this bill and agreed emphatically that it be passed and be allowed to proceed. It is not as though many changes are required to define this thing called the humanities. The committee recommended that a minor change be made to clause 5(2), in respect of examining the depth of the definition of the humanities, and to omit references to English and American studies, or words of that effect in the English language. In the view of that committee, it is a waste of time to specify English, because it is already in the broad statement about language types. The same can be said about American studies, because it is already there in cultural studies. So, according to the committee in that discussion, it is a sheer waste of time to make those changes in that clause.

But I want to pick up on the advice from George Jones. He is a person who, to my knowledge, is reliably informed about the work of the society, having been a member of the Wellington branch for 45 years, including nearly a decade as the president of that organisation. Mr Jones noted that although America has had some influence on New Zealand culture, there has certainly been far more influence from Māori, and he suggested that Māori studies could therefore be added, in addition to cultural studies. The Māori Party fully endorses that kind of thinking, and urges the Minister to examine it more closely.

Perhaps we should look at subclause (2) of clause 5, the interpretation clause. We must not forget that the Māori Language Act 1987 declared te reo Māori as an official language—almost a quarter of a century ago. We advocate that te reo Māori is the foundation language of New Zealand, the ancestral language of the indigenous people, and one of the heirlooms guaranteed protection under the Treaty of Waitangi. It also provides this country with a unique language identity in the rest of the world, as this is the only place where Māori is spoken widely. Yet the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997—introduced some 10 years after the Māori Language Act—has not included this major development in its text. So we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to have it debated there. So that is that point, which I leave there.

Secondly, I want to put a thought before us that relates specifically to the Treaty of Waitangi. Despite recommendations in the first reading that were the focus of my address in this House, there is still no reference made to the critical role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand—not one mention. We of the Māori Party argued strongly that the Treaty of Waitangi be included to enhance things Māori in the domain of science and technology, enabling the nation to look critically at these two things being referred to, based on a Māori perspective.

So these are our urgings. We think that it is better to look at things that way, because most times those matters are never aired—the way Māoridom views the world, compared with his or her view of the world; and, eventually, the nation’s view compared with that of Māori. There are so many ways in which this bill could stretch its view. It could have taken a wider view towards aspects of Māori knowledge in terms of broadening that aspect. Perhaps that is just my take on things, based on the kind of talk about self-determination in relation to activities concerning science, research, and technology. That is another sphere. What we are saying is enough. Give due consideration to that which pertains to the indigenous people of the land and the Treaty of Waitangi in this part of the deliberations.

Further to that, we have many questions to put before the House at this time, but first I go all the way back to my first address and urge that the situation as it relates to the Māori language be considered, because it is the founding language of New Zealand. Consider the Treaty of Waitangi again as a means of broadening the outlook towards this bill. These, then, are our urgings. But there are so many other major things that Māoridom is striving for. Land control, ancestral control, genealogy, all these talks, guardianship—who can examine the depth of these matters? So there is not much more to add further, except to say, yes, at Committee stage we will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers for the House as a whole to debate and unravel in the future. Greetings to us .]

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : It is a pleasure to address the House during the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. When one does so, one does so with a level of confidence that there is universal support for the bill in the House.

We had 13 submissions. Six submitters asked to be heard. One thing that was interesting to the Education and Science Committee was the disconnect between the various provincial organisations of the Royal Society and the Royal Society itself over the constitution. I think that there is a better understanding now, if not an agreed position taken by the various provincial arms of the Royal Society.

The Royal Society has been going since 1867. As has been borne out, the amendment to clause 5 was the only substantive change that the committee recommended. In doing so it amends that clause by removing the words “English and other” and “and American studies” for obvious reasons, which will, no doubt, be drawn out in the Committee stage.

Other than that, this is very tidy legislation coming before the House. I have the pleasure of supporting the bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to stand in support of the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am happy to do so both as a member of the Labour caucus and as a member of the Royal Society itself. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson, the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, on bringing this important legislation to the House.

The legislation marks an evolving of the Royal Society to include the humanities. That inclusion is not universally agreed with throughout the science sector, but it is an idea whose time has come, I think it is fair to say. The reality of the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research that is undertaken by not only our universities but also our Crown research institutes and private research institutes shows that it is getting more and more difficult to draw a line between true scientific endeavours and those that enter into the humanities. I think that inclusion of the humanities makes a lot of sense. Including and promoting research in the humanities as well as in what would be considered more pure science is something the Royal Society has been doing in practice for a while. So for that reason it makes sense that in many respects the legislation brings the Royal Society’s legislation into line with its actual practice in the current day.

Some questions were raised, I understand, at the Education and Science Committee, and there were some concerns from some branches of the Royal Society, about the level of consultation. I, as a member of the Royal Society, was consulted on the bill. I received my consultation pack and my voting papers in the mail. I thought the information provided was appropriate. The information provided was fulsome, and I was quite comfortable with the level of consultation provided by the Royal Society.

It is particularly important that we continue to support multidisciplinary approaches to research. There are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary approaches going on around New Zealand. During the time of the previous Labour Government we started funding centres of research excellence that were based in universities, Crown research institutes, and private research institutes. Those centres really supported the notion of multidisciplinary research, which is what the Royal Society is reflecting here in the legislation.

A multidisciplinary approach draws together people from many different areas around a common focus in research. It may involve not just scientists but also economists, sociologists, lawyers, or any number of people who can all come together and work on a particular area of scientific research that is crucial for the economy of this country. That approach is something Labour very much supported when we were in Government. It makes sense that the Royal Society, which has also been supporting this multidisciplinary approach to research, also brings its own legislation and practices into line so that it is not stymied and so there are no barriers that in any way stop these different areas of the research community from collaborating as much and as fully as they possibly can.

Some of the multidisciplinary research that is going on around the country really is world class. I urge members of the House to take note of a lot of the research that is being done. I think one of the things we as parliamentarians should be able to do is say to the people who put us here that we do have regard for the research that is being done not only in New Zealand—particularly in New Zealand, where it is relevant to our own situation—but also around the world. Sometimes it concerns me—and I know that this concern came through in some of the submissions—that due consideration is not given to that research.

The multidisciplinary research that is being done at the Otago University has shown the absolutely important and crucial role that quality early childhood education can play in the long-term achievement of an individual. It is the first type of research of this kind that has been done around the world. It has shown very, very clearly that individuals who have gone through not just any kind of childcare but early childhood education that is good quality and specifically teacher-led can have far greater outcomes not just throughout the rest of their education but for the rest of their lives. That research is the kind of multidisciplinary research that needs to be taken into account by members of this House. We need to be able to say that we have regard to the research. If parliamentarians choose to ignore research, then that is their prerogative; they are elected to be here. But they should at least have to show regard to it, and they should at least have to be prepared to explain to people why they ignore the overwhelming research in a particular area when making policy decisions.

Labour has always been very supportive of this evidence-based approach to policy. I know that the Royal Society has also been particularly supportive of that approach in its work. Scientists and researchers across the board do not carry out research just for fun. They do not do it just for the hell of it. They do it because they want to contribute to the information out there, to the decision-making processes, to good-quality policy decisions, and to policy-making processes.

We have heard a lot of fine words in this debate. I welcome comments from all members in the debate on the legislation, but it has to go further than just voting in favour of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has to go much further than that. It has to go much further, and we have to be able to say as a Parliament that not only do we support the work the Royal Society does—its move to include humanities, and its move to support more multidisciplinary approaches to research—we are going to take regard of that research when it is completed, we are not going to ignore it, and if we believe the research is wrong, we will challenge it. We will give reasons why we are challenging it and why we do not believe that the research should be given due regard.

I can think of the example of boot camps. All the research told us they would not work. All the research said the participants had worse outcomes, not better, and that the camps create fitter, faster criminals. All the research about boot camps was very clear, yet a policy that disregarded the research was put in place.

A party runs on a policy platform and when it is in Government it has a mandate to bring policies into place, but the Government should have to explain to the public why it is ignoring every single piece of evidence out there and why it thinks the evidence is wrong and it is right. A lot of taxpayers’ money is being spent. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve to know that their money is being well spent, that the research is not being ignored, and that the evidence is being listened to before money goes towards pet projects that are, frankly, doomed to failure before they even start and we flush $20 million of taxpayers’ money down the drain.

I hope that the fine words we have heard—

Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just drawing your attention to the speech to see whether it is going beyond the scope of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Well, I am waiting for the member to make it relevant.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may or may not be aware that prior to the dinner break the Deputy Speaker gave an explicit instruction to all members that after—how can I put it—a slight digression by myself and Mr Shearer, he felt that it kind of closed off that issue and that all other speakers essentially were to speak on the bill. He felt that Mr Shearer and I had had an appropriate and adequate debate, but that probably should be confined to the two speakers I have just referred to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I was not aware of that ruling. I have frequently told the House that, of all the debates, a second reading debate is pretty much the tightest. If members want to make analogies or comparisons, that is appropriate, but they must be linked to the material pertaining to the second reading.

MOANA MACKEY: I apologise to National members. I thought the Royal Society of New Zealand was about research, but apparently not. That is all right; if it makes the member uncomfortable, then I will speak about something else. One of the key achievements, as I said, of the previous Labour Government was the multidisciplinary approach that is being taken up in this legislation. As I also said before, there was some disquiet at first about the inclusion of humanities into the Royal Society’s role. The reason I was discussing some of the areas that the humanities go into is to show that crossover, to show why it is important that this change in the Royal Society be supported, and actually to brag a little bit about the fantastic research that is going on out there. I am very disappointed that National members are so uncomfortable about that that they feel the need to shut me down.

Louise Upston: We just want to talk about the bill.

MOANA MACKEY: Well, they want to talk about the bill because they do not want to talk about their appalling record in this area, but that is fine; we can move on.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven.

MOANA MACKEY: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven?

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Yes, that’s right.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh, the boot camps. The Minister wants to interject on me about boot camps.

Chester Borrows: No, they’re not boot camps; they are Limited Service Volunteers, not Fresh Start camps.

MOANA MACKEY: “Limited Service Volunteers” is the nice phrase National has come up with, but they are boot camps. That is what National members called them during the election campaign, but now they have realised that the name does not sound good, so they want to move away from it. The fact is that it does not matter what National members call boot camps, they do not work, and the research shows that.

The Royal Society has often taken pains to show how important it is that Governments follow an evidence-based approach to policy. What is it about an evidence-based approach to policy that terrifies National members so much? All the Royal Society has been asking for for the longest time is that we look at the evidence, because the best example of how things are going to go in the future is how they have worked before—and boot camps did not work before. The research shows that, and the evidence shows that.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know I have made some interjections but I did stop with the interjections, and the speech has just continued and continued, with no reference whatsoever to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member has to take some responsibility for what happened. Moana Mackey, you have 30 seconds left. Talk to us about the bill.

MOANA MACKEY: This legislation is very good. As I said, as a member of the Royal Society, I was completely happy with the consultation that was undertaken and with the ability given by members of the Royal Society to participate in that consultation. I know that concerns were raised at the Education and Science Committee about the consultation, which is why I want to mention it.

The bill is a step change—as Government members are so fond of saying—for the Royal Society. It brings in the humanities. It is a welcome change and I look forward to the Committee stage debates on the bill, when I might be able to talk about things without the National members getting so upset.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am very proud to speak in the second reading debate to support the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Some people will be a bit puzzled as to which legislation we are discussing in this debate. It is not contentious legislation, which some of those listening will be quite staggered to hear, but it makes a quite a simple change. All it is doing is putting into law what the Royal Society has already been doing in practice for the last 12 months, which is including the humanities in the work it does.

If we look at the preamble to the bill, we see that when the Royal Society was first set up, one of its purposes was the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. I am a proud member of the National Government, which has a fine record in this area. Fantastic work has been done by the Minister of Science and Innovation, Dr Wayne Mapp, who is sitting behind me. I am very proud that this change to this legislation supports further work in science in this country. Thank you.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : I rise to speak very briefly on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member Grant Robertson, who brought it to the House. As we know, the bill makes a fairly minor amendment, but it is actually a very big deal for the people who are involved in the Royal Society.

We have certainly heard that the consultation was far from perfect in the eyes of some of the members. However, it seems that the changes made at the request of the Royal Society are mainly minor. The inclusion of the humanities is an important step to take, and I believe that as this bill beds in, we will find over time that the concerns of some of the members are allayed as they better understand how the change can benefit the Royal Society in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : As Jo Goodhew has just said, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill does mean a lot to the people of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Although only a word or so of the principal Act is being changed, the bill has huge implications, because the humanities are included in the objects and functions of the society.

We have the humanities sitting here, and science and technology sitting over there. I ask members to imagine a Venn diagram. I think the argument stems from whether science and the humanities overlap in a Venn diagram. I think it is really important, and I think Moana Mackey spelt things out quite articulately to be honest. A debate has gone on for a number of years about the merging of the humanities, the sciences, and technology. Because I am a new member to the Education and Science Committee, I missed out on the submissions. I personally was not fully aware of the Royal Society of New Zealand and what it does, so, like all good researchers, I googled it. The debate has gone on for some time. I came across The Two Cultures, an influential 1959 Rede Lecture. So the debate has gone on even since 1959. The lecture was by British scientist and novelist C P Snow, and its thesis was that “the breakdown of communication between ‘the two cultures’ of modern society, the sciences and the humanities, was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.” I find it quite amazing that people were thinking at that sort of level about the sciences and the humanities, and thinking that the breakdown of communication between them—calling them “the two cultures”—was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.

So what is science? I looked up a definition of science, and it stated science is “an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was “a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.” It is stating there that science is a body of knowledge that can be rationally and logically explained. Technology is “the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organisation in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species’ ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.” I believe that science and technology are traditionally thought to be more closely related to each other than they are to the humanities. I know, from teaching technology at schools, that technology is the search for a solution to a problem or a need.

Then we come to humanities. “Humanities are the academic disciplines that study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytical, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural science. Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages, literature, law, history, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts, including music and theatre. Additional subjects included in the humanities are technology, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, and linguistics, although these are also regarded as social sciences.” So the humanities look more at the human side of things—obviously, being “humanities”—compared with the sciences, which, as I said earlier, is a body of knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.

The Royal Society does a lot of good in a lot of areas around research, the promotion of studies, and projects like that. When I was the principal at Kaitāia Intermediate School, a teacher at that school took a year’s leave with pay—paid for by the Royal Society—to undertake a study of Ninety Mile Beach and the effect of pingao, the native plant that is similar to a hard flax, on the sand dunes and erosion, and toheroa, would you believe. There is a belief that toheroa spawn attach themselves to the pingao. It was a year-long scientific study by this teacher, sponsored by the Royal Society. That is an illustration of the good work the society is doing. As I was going through the society’s website, I saw the number of ways that it supports and sponsors high school students on overseas trips to undertake higher study. The society supports all manner of research projects. I think it is important to raise this point for the people out there to whom this bill would not mean a lot. I think it is important that people hear and understand exactly the contribution that the Royal Society makes to New Zealand.

Section 5 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is one of the sections that is being changed. It states: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.” That is what the Act currently says. Section 5 is being amended, by clause 6, to state: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities.”

I have explained what is involved in technology, science, and humanities. Sociology, which is one of the humanities, is the study of society. It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—that “uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social activity, often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of agency and interaction, to the macro level of systems and social structures.” That is one of the fields of the humanities that has been brought into the amendment bill. Anthropology is another field of the humanities. It is the study of humanity, and it has origins in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. Anthropology asks what defines humans, who the ancestors of modern humans are, what humans’ physical traits are, how humans behave, why there are variations and differences among different groups of humans, and how the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens has influenced its social organisation and culture.

That is just a broad outline for those people out there who are wondering what the Royal Society does and what this bill is about. We need to recognise the massive contribution the society makes to research and to education in New Zealand. Even though this is a non-controversial bill and it will probably slip through under most people’s radar, I think it is right that we take the time to talk about the great work the society is doing, the work that it has done, and, hopefully, the work that it will continue to do in New Zealand for many, many more years to come. Kia ora.

• Bill read a second time.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Obviously I had not made it very far into my contribution when we were last considering this bill. Clause 4A goes to the heart of one of the questions that members on this side of the Chamber have about this bill. The member in charge of this bill, Heather Roy, said that she does not want to see the end of students associations, and that her intention is not to destroy students associations. But clause 4A amends the principal Act to delete any reference to students associations on the tertiary institutes’ councils. The original section that it deletes, section 171(2)(e), refers to having students on the council “in the case of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory, in accordance with the constitution or rules of the association;”. Obviously, this bill changes the compulsory nature of it. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to remove any reference to students associations.

So I speak in support of the amendment proposed by Grant Robertson, which is to replace the current clause 4A with wording that includes “(i) following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the institution where no student association exists at the institution; or (ii) by a student association where such an association exists at the institution:”. That clause seems to sit perfectly reasonably with the intention of the bill, if the intention of the bill is not to see the end of student associations.

I think the problem with the way the clause is worded at the moment is that it is quite inflexible in dealing with the way in which different student associations might be structured at different universities and polytechnics, and with the way they might operate. I will use the example of the student representation on the Massey University Council, because at Massey University a number of students associations represent its different campuses and its extramural students. Students have three representatives on the university council, and they use their right to appoint people to the university council to ensure there is adequate representation of internal students, extramural students, and Māori students. That approach to representation on the council has been student-directed; it has been decided by students and it can be changed by students because students have control over the way they are represented on that council.

But the current wording of the bill we are looking at says that all that power to decide the way in which students will be represented on the council would sit with the institution itself. So the university, the polytechnic, the wānanga, or the private training establishment—whichever organisation we are talking about—would have the decision-making power about the way in which students would be represented on that institution’s council.

The whole point of having student representation on those councils is to ensure that there is a student voice at the highest decision-making body at those institutions. That is completely undermined by the way the bill is written at the moment, because students would not be able to decide the process by which they decide who represents them. That decision would sit solely with the institution itself. I suppose the member in the chair might make the argument that students on the council could have a say in that.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I am pleased to take my first call on clause 4A. I will carry on from where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, in his impromptu address, just finished. There is both good and bad in what is happening here with clause 4A. The good is that the Education and Science Committee recognised that there was now a gap in relation to student representation on councils. The select committee realised that there needed to be a specific clause that would continue to facilitate students being represented on councils. So in that sense, it is a good thing that the select committee has brought forward this issue. However, the solution proposed in clause 4A cuts to the heart of the problem of the whole bill—that is, the loss of student control of student affairs. We have been over this issue a number of times in the earlier readings in this debate. At the heart of one of the major objections that this side of the Chamber has to this bill is the fact that students, who for generations now have had some control of the way in which affairs are administered at the institution they are studying at, are losing that control. We will come to the next clause in the bill later, in which we will talk about how that plays out in terms of the collection of fees, and so on.

This clause is about something quite fundamental: the representation of students on tertiary institution councils. It is a vital role about which the select committee heard that institutional representatives really value having on tertiary councils students who can represent student views, and who they know have been through some process themselves of being elected. Those students are there on a representative basis to provide a voice and a feedback mechanism for those institutions.

I remember visiting the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology last year, and the chief executive there made it really clear to me that on a number of decisions made by the council, having duly elected students on that council made a difference and made for better decisions. That is particularly the case, as Iain Lees-Galloway was just mentioning before, in terms of multiple-campus environments. The Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology is an example. It is not as big as Massey University, obviously, but it is an institution with a multiple-campus environment, and those student representatives who have a role across those different campuses add something to the tertiary council that those who perhaps represent a particular geographic area, in terms of the wider council membership, cannot do.

The amendment in my name to clause 4A is an attempt to say yes, I thank the select committee for having put this up, but clause 4A as agreed to by the committee does not bring this issue of representation into the control of students. Once again, the clause does what this bill does throughout: it takes away from students the ability to manage their own affairs and hands that over to an institution. The institution may or may not have the best interests of the students at heart, and it may or may not come up with a truly democratic process for the selection of students to represent the wider student body. But we know that student associations, where they exist, can run that process, and that students elected to a council can be truly legitimate representatives of the students at that institution. The amendment I have put forward acknowledges the situation that we obviously do not want to occur but is a likely outcome of Heather Roy’s bill—that is, that there will not be student associations for some campuses. That will be the outcome, and the member sponsoring the bill needs to acknowledge that.

Hon Heather Roy: There aren’t now.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I think there are one or two, I tell Heather Roy. I think she will find that under this bill there will be a whole lot more institutions where students do not have student associations. My amendment, however, acknowledges that sad reality in subparagraph (i): “following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by council) by the students at the association where no student association exists at the institution;”. But where a student association is in existence, it should be the body that elects those students to tertiary institution councils. I served as a student on a tertiary institution council for 2 years, and I think that the student voice is an important voice that should not be lost.

Shane Ardern: And what’s changed since 1960?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh, a harsh man! It was in 1993 and 1994 actually—2 years, I might add, in which, under a National Government, fees went up by 18 percent one year and 15 percent the other year. There was a small fracas with the police around one of those that I am still not able to fully talk about. But an important role was played by student leaders right across the country at that time.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I have uncovered a bit of an issue, and I would like to ask the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill some questions about clause 4A and the fact that it amends section 171(2) of the existing Education Act. I think we need to be clear about what we are talking about here. I know that the member in charge of the bill is one to do her homework, and I am sure she will be in a position to answer the questions I am about to ask her.

The issue I have is that this bill amends only the constitutions of university councils. An earlier amendment passed by this National Government early in its term amended the constitutions of polytechnic councils so that they no longer have guaranteed student representation at all. Polytechnic councils were previously subject to the same provisions of the Education Act that this bill amends, but the Government changed it so that polytechnics are no longer covered by those clauses. Polytechnic councils now have four representatives appointed by the Government and four representatives appointed by the tertiary institutions. That has effectively given all the power to make up the composition of a polytechnic council to the Government and to the institution. Students are no longer guaranteed representation on a polytechnic council, notwithstanding any changes that may or may not be made in this bill. So what we are talking about here relates to universities and, I believe, to wānanga. I believe that these provisions still apply to wānanga.

The question I have for the member in charge of the bill—who I am sure has done her homework on this—is how students and staff have fared at the polytechnics, where the councils already have the power to determine the nature of student representation. This bill will hand universities and wānanga the power to determine the manner in which student representatives are selected. I welcome the fact that this provision guarantees that at least one of the representatives on a university or wānanga council will be a student. I welcome that because that guarantee is not currently afforded to polytechnic students or institutes of technology students, due to the change the National Government made that removed their right to have a representative on their council.

But the real question I have for the member—and I am sure she has done her homework on it and I am sure she is looking it up right now and will respond to it—is how students have fared. Have the institutions, the polytechnics, continued to afford students that ability to be represented on their councils even though they are no longer guaranteed that right? If they have not, what confidence can university and wānanga students have that they will not be treated in exactly the same way if this bill is passed in its present form? In other words, they could lose their student representation on the councils of their institutions. It is actually a very important point because ultimately students are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution. It could be argued that alumni are the largest body of stakeholders in an institution, but I would say that the current students probably have the most current interest in the affairs of the institution, and have provided a very significant contribution to the governance of those institutions.

I have been on a university council. I served on the Victoria University of Wellington Council here in Wellington for 2 years. It was a really interesting experience, and I think the two student representatives that Victoria University’s current constitution allows for provide very, very valuable input into that institution’s governance process. In the case of Victoria University the president of the students association—which was me at the time—is automatically one of those student representatives. The other is elected by an election of the student population at large. The students association determined how that was done, because under the existing law the filling of those positions is delegated to the students association. The students association is therefore guaranteed one student representative; it could have up to three. Massey University, where Mr Lees-Galloway was, has three student representatives. We argued at Victoria University for three student representatives.

Grant Robertson: Your two were as good as three.

CHRIS HIPKINS: We got only two. But as my colleague Mr Robertson just pointed out, two student representatives from Victoria are definitely worth three from Massey. I think our quality meant that we managed to get by with only two whereas Massey University, unfortunately, needed to have three in order to provide the same value to the council’s governance processes.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I want to take a brief call on clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill because it cuts to the heart of what the bill is all about. It cuts to the heart of the issue and what we are here for. In fact, it may well be that if we look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper in particular and agree to its amendments it would meet pretty much the concerns of the member who is pushing through this bill, the Hon Heather Roy. I will go back quickly to his amendment to clause 4, which states: “To omit ‘uphold students’ rights to freedom of association, by removing any requirement for students to join students associations’ and substitute ‘but allow periodic referenda to test this issue’ ”. That seems to me to be a perfect recipe that would bridge the gap between what Heather Roy would like to see in terms of this bill and what we are able to live with ourselves. It would mean that instead of this legislation being repealed, more or less, about 2 or 3 months after it was enacted, it would be able to stand the test of time and continue. I think a lot of people would agree to that amendment.

I come back to clause 4A, which amends section 171(2). I pick up the point Chris Hipkins was talking about, that while this bill has been going through Parliament we have had some substantial changes in the make-up of councils, pushed through by the Education Amendment Act late last year. This means that students associations will not be represented as fully on a council as we would like. This is a great loss. Previously we had an opportunity to have real students association representation that could be properly representative of students themselves, but now that will be severely degraded. We will not have the same ability to have students advocate on a council for the issues they really want. The council will have to choose between some of the other representatives they have—I think there are four plus four—and students associations are, I believe, the ones that will miss out.

But, more important, the quality of the participation on those councils is about the representation. If we do not have a students association large enough to be able to support students, a students association that can give service, not only in the other things we have talked about before—health, student support, guidance sporting facilities, and so on—but in the advocacy of student issues, then there will be a real problem.

I was in my electorate on Monday this week speaking to the students association president there. The worry is the types of services the students association will be able to offer at Unitec, the polytech there—the largest polytech in New Zealand. The people there will have a real issue, particularly with clauses 4 and 4A, as to their ability to be represented in a truly representative way, even though they have a council that is extremely open-minded and an exceptional chief executive officer. But they will not have that sort of representation by right; they will have it at the behest of the chief executive officer of Unitec.

In conclusion, and speaking to clause 4A, which amends section 171(2), I think that Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper 191 amendments to both clause 4 and clause 4A are excellent suggestions, made in the spirit of trying to achieve something that will be enduring for all students.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is just a point of clarification. You have called for clause 6. Can you clarify whether new clause 6A will be debated as a separate clause? I just want to make sure that it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, that is correct. Is the member seeking the call?

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : Yes, Mr Chair. I do want to speak on this clause. In fact, I look forward to this being the first of my four calls on this particular clause, because this clause is where the rubber hits the road in the bill. I am sure that even the member in the chair, Heather Roy, will acknowledge that this is indeed where the rubber hits the road in this part of the bill.

Initially, I will make two comments about the beginning of clause 6, which inserts new section 229A, “Membership of students associations voluntary”, in the Education Act 1989. We have said on numerous occasions in this debate that we fundamentally oppose this particular part of the bill. This is the bit of the bill that will destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have seen from Australia, and that is what will happen in New Zealand, as well. This provision fundamentally undermines the ability of students associations to organise and to resource the work they do. It means they will become beholden to the institutions they are part of, and it means that students will lose control of student affairs. This is the undermining of student representation—the student representation that has meant many individual students have been able to carry on with their study and to succeed and pass because they have had a resourced students association to back them up.

When I sat on the Education and Science Committee on this bill, I think my colleagues from National actually began to realise as the debate on the bill went on that students associations play a fundamental role in the success of students in their study. We heard of numerous examples. I have mentioned before the example from Waikato University of the students whose flat burned down, who were being ripped off by the insurance company, and who were being biffed out of their flat. It was the Waikato Student Union that made sure those students were able to continue to study and stay at university. We heard other examples of a similar nature.

New section 229A will fundamentally undermine the representative role, the advocacy role, that has meant so much to so many students not just in terms of those practical, day-to-day issues but also in the overall advocacy that has seen interest-free student loans. It has seen, going as far back as the 1970s, the standard tertiary bursary, which resulted from advocacy in those situations by the New Zealand University Students’ Association, backed by its constituent associations from polytechs, universities, and wānanga. That kind of work will not now be possible, with students associations undermined by new section 229A.

I make a bit of an appeal to my National colleagues. As I said, in the debate we heard at the select committee we felt that our National colleagues were beginning to realise there was a possible way through to enable them to address some of the issues they had in relation to their fear of compulsion and of what that meant in terms of freedom issues—things they obviously genuinely see as being important. We felt in the discussions that a compromise was possible. That compromise was built around the amendments on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that I have on the Table. One of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 191 is about ensuring that if a decision is made to enforce what is in new section 229A, it is undertaken only after a nationwide referendum of students. It should be done only after a nationwide referendum of students.

At this point it is important to remember that what is being undone by new section 229A is, in fact, National policy. The compromise from the 1990s relating to the ability of students to call for referenda and go to a voluntary position was the policy of National, driven through by Tau Henare, of all people, among others. But the Bolger-Shipley Government said that it thought that policy was the right thing to do. That Government also did that at the end of a long submission process, after it had heard from the institutions, the students, and the families of students. It said that it did not want to ruin students associations. It wanted to address some of the issues it had in relation to freedom of choice and compulsion, and it did that by putting in place the ability for students to call for a referendum, in order to give students some choice in whether there would be a students association. That is what is being undone by new section 229A.

But I think that in the select committee we found further compromise, via the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers, and in this case that is to allow for a nationwide referendum. That is the first area—the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add, after “association” at the end of new section 229A, “if a majority of students support voluntary student membership in a nationwide 2011 referendum”. I ask why National members would oppose that. That is students making a choice. Of course, members on this side of the Chamber oppose the bill in principle, but, having realised that our National colleagues on the select committee wanted something different, we have gone looking for something that is a compromise.

I am making a plea tonight to the National members of the committee who sat through all of those submissions and heard overwhelmingly from students and tertiary institutions that they want to retain representative, well-resourced students associations. Above all, the submitters wanted to retain some sense of student control and student choice. We have the ability to do that in the amendment we have put forward to new section 229A. I know that National members on the select committee wanted to look at those ideas, and I am calling on them tonight to think about how they can make sure that students associations will continue and will be able to address some of the issues they have. That is what we are looking at in the amendment to new section 229A.

The other amendment I will talk about in relation to that issue is to do with whether students can request a change to membership. Obviously, that is the situation we have at the moment. If 10 percent of students want to have a referendum, then there will be a referendum. We have always felt that that was a reasonable proportion of students. We are happy to look at compromise. We are happy to bring that percentage down a little bit if that is enough for National, or we are happy to simply say that there will be a referendum every few years. If, for instance, students do not make the choice to put forward the idea of a referendum and if a number of years elapse—5 years was a figure I heard bandied around in the select committee—then after that 5-year period there will automatically be a referendum. I stress that this is not the preferred option of members on this side of the Chamber; our preferred option is to continue to allow students to organise on their own terms. But we recognised during the select committee process that there may need to be some room for movement so that we do not go down the path of destroying students associations, because that is what the new section 229A and the subsequent clauses will do.

There is an option on the Table in my Supplementary Order Paper 191 that I believe fulfils the desires of the National caucus to make some change but still allow students associations to succeed. The opportunity is there tonight for National members to adopt those amendments. It will still mean a change, it will still mean that things will be different for student associations, but it will safeguard those vital representative roles, those vital advocacy roles—the student services that have made such a big difference to the health and well-being of students.

National members on the Education and Science Committee heard time and time again during the select committee process how vital those things were and how easily they would be undermined. I know that the National members of that select committee knew that, and while Roger Douglas was there, it seemed that they would go with it. It seemed as if they would go with it, then some very unfortunate shenanigans in the ACT Party saw Heather Roy returned to the select committee, and, mysteriously, the National members’ enthusiasm for some form of compromise waned.

Hon Heather Roy: Persuaded by the member.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I am not sure; persuaded by the member—perhaps. There seemed to be a sudden shift in National’s view at that point. That is unfortunate, because I strongly believe that in these Supplementary Order Papers a middle ground can be found. That is not what members on this side of the Chamber would prefer by any means, but it is certainly something for which we think we can see a wide buy-in.

As it stands, new section 229A, which is the first change within clause 6, is one that I believe will see the end of student associations on a lot of campuses. Perhaps it will not on some of the larger university campuses where students associations have service level agreements—and we will come to that a little further on as we go through some of the other changes in clause 6—because there is scope for certain types of service level agreements. But for those polytechnic campuses where students associations will not be able to enter into those sorts of service level agreements, new section 229A is the death of student associations and the death of all the good work like the advocacy, the representation, and the other services that have meant so much to generations of students. It will be very sad if these provisions are passed tonight as they are now, because those things will be undermined.

There is an opportunity here for compromise. National members should take it.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : This is where the rubber hits the road with the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and I am looking forward to the very fulsome debate that is going to take place here. I am interested particularly in the fact that nobody from the other side of the Chamber has got to their feet and spoken in favour of this bill, despite 98 percent of the submissions made to the Education and Science Committee opposing it. National and the ACT Party are using their majority in the House to push this legislation through, despite overwhelming opposition at the select committee. It says something about National’s view of democracy that despite the fact that an overwhelming number of submissions to the select committee was opposed to this legislation, National is going to push it through anyway.

I want to talk about what this legislation will mean for individual students and for the costs and the challenges that they currently face when studying at their tertiary institutions. At the moment students associations, through a universal fee, provide very, very good value for money for students. Under this legislation, that value for money will be eroded and students will probably end up paying more. But we should not be surprised about that coming from the National Government, because—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Prove it.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Wayne Mapp says that I should prove it. I will easily do that. In 1999, when this issue was last debated, there was a referendum at all of the university and tertiary campuses. People got to choose whether it was going to be a voluntary membership system or a compulsory membership system. Victoria University decided that it would continue to provide many of the services that the students association provided, even if the students had voted for voluntary membership. It was going to do that by raising a levy to cover the cost of that. That levy was going to cost more than the students association levy, because it did not think that it could provide those services as cheaply as the students association did. So it was going to cost students more to vote for voluntary membership than to keep a universal system of membership. Students would receive fewer services—the level of service they would receive would be diminished—but they would pay more for those services. That is the proof that Wayne Mapp was just asking for. I thank him for the question and I look forward to his next one, because if he keeps going along those lines, I am sure we could have quite a rigorous debate about it.

Otago University estimated that it had the help of 598 volunteers in 2009, who provided over 20,000 volunteer hours amongst them. All of those things are severely diminished in a voluntary membership regime. At the moment, students get a pretty good deal because there is a huge amount of free labour that goes into providing the services on offer at many institutions. Yes, those institutions would seek to replicate under a voluntary membership regime some of the services provided by students associations under a universal membership regime, but it would cost more. Students would end up having to pay more to get less. So that is really important. I am surprised that the Government is not willing to address this issue at a time when students are already struggling.

Hon Damien O’Connor: They’re doing that to everybody else.

CHRIS HIPKINS: We should not be surprised, because as my colleague Damien O’Connor has pointed out, the Government is loading up costs to everybody else. So what is loading up a few more costs on to students going to be for the National-ACT Government? Those members do not really mind, and they do not really care about that.

The tertiary institutions themselves are opposed to this legislation, and submitted such a view to the select committee. Tertiary institutions recognised that students associations play a vital role not only in providing services for students but also in adding to the life of the university and in providing a student voice at very important decision-making points within the tertiary institution processes. I was at Victoria University, where student representatives, coordinated by the students association, advocated for students’ interests at all levels of the university. Starting at a pretty basic level, each individual class has a class representative who is there if a student has a difficulty with their class, a problem with their lecturer, or a concern about which they need some advice. Students can go to their class representatives, who have been coordinated to be in those roles by the students association. They are trained by the students association in how to deal with certain issues.

If we move up to the faculty board level, again we see that student representation at that level is organised by the students association. At the academic board level, student representation is provided, and as we talked about in the last part, all the way up to the governing level of the institution student representation is coordinated by the students association. Therefore, there is a comprehensive system of student representation at tertiary institutions. The reason the students associations have a mandate to do that is that they have as their members more or less the entire student body. We know that students actually support that system of membership because they were given a choice in 1999 as to whether they wanted to continue with it, and overwhelmingly they said yes, they wanted to stick with that system. Overwhelmingly, students said they wanted to stick with a universal system of membership.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to say from time to time that that regime should be tested. I would have no problem with that. In fact, if Heather Roy came into the House with a bill to have another referendum and to give students that choice, I would probably vote in favour of it. In fact, Labour is offering that choice to the Government now. If the Government wants to provide students with a choice, we would happily support it. This debate would be all over very quickly if the choice was given to students to have the referendum, to determine—

Grant Robertson: It’s on the Table right now.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That option is on the Table, and this debate would all be over if students were given that choice. Students could determine that, no, they do not want a universal system of membership; they want a voluntary regime. We would accept that. If they wanted, by majority, to continue to have a universal system of membership—as they overwhelmingly chose when last given the opportunity to do so—we would also accept that. We think that the students of the institutions should have that choice, and I am very disappointed that National is voting in favour of a bill that denies students that option, particularly given the heritage of that last choice. People like Tau Henare negotiated that arrangement when Tony Steel put forward the bill in 1997 or 1998, I think it was. Tau Henare was one of the pivotal players in securing that compromise that put the choice into the hands of students, and there is an awful lot at stake. I think Tau Henare recognised that back then, and I am disappointed that he seems to have stopped recognising that now, and seems to have turned his back on the things that he was arguing in favour of when he put that amendment forward.

Activities are provided by students associations that are vital to campus life, whether it is at a polytechnic, a university, or a wānanga. We are talking about the clubs, we are talking about orientation, we are talking about services like student media, and we have the student newspapers and student radio.

In fact, the Minister for Tertiary Education himself, who went on to make millions of dollars in commercial broadcasting, started out in student radio. It was with the money from the students associations that Steven Joyce started on the ladder to making his great fortune. Yet he now wants to yank up the ladder behind him. Paula Bennett started her political career as the president of a students association. I understand that back then she claimed to be a lefty, before she joined the National Party. Once again, it is another example of Paula Bennett saying: “Well it worked pretty well for me”—much like the training incentive allowance—“but I’m just going to yank that opportunity away from other people. I’m going to take that away. It worked all right for me and I don’t really care about what happens to people who come along behind me.” That is the position of the National members. They are not interested in everybody else. They are not interested in the people on Struggle Street. They are not interested in the people who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They are interested only in themselves and their mates. They are not interested in ordinary, hard-working Kiwis. University and tertiary students are great examples of people who are working hard to further themselves and lift themselves up, but this Government constantly tries to pull the rug out from under them. This is a very bad bill. It is a bad bill that robs students of many of the vital supports they have come to expect.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Why are you such a communist?

CHRIS HIPKINS: Wayne Mapp has just called me a communist. In 1981 Wayne Mapp lost the selection for a Labour Party nomination to Phil Goff. He sits over there now because Labour did not want him. That is why Wayne Mapp is over there, and he is still bitter and twisted that he got beaten in 1981 by Phil Goff to be the Labour Party candidate in Mt Roskill. He is all bitter and twisted and chewed up about that. I come back to the point I was raising before, which is that this is a bad bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is legislation the Greens have opposed and will continue to oppose. I have seen it described recently as an ideological solution in search of a real-world problem, and I think that basically sums it up.

Clause 6 contains the gist of the bill. It is the essence of the bill. New section 229A in clause 6 states that a student may not be obliged to be a member of an association. That provision brings to me an immediate issue—a problem—and it is reinforced in new section 229CA, which I call the free-rider provision. It states that students who are not members of an association may not be obliged to pay for services that are provided generally to the student body of the institution. That is a free-rider clause. It states that where services are provided to everybody, and where people cannot be excluded from access to those services, non-members—people who are not paying their way—will be able to enjoy them.

Like many other New Zealanders and, indeed, other members in this House, I am a member of the Automobile Association. In the event that on a wet morning my car fails to start, I can phone for a nice man in a van to come and get me mobile. It would be odd if my neighbour, who happened not to be a member of the Automobile Association, could ring and get that same service for free. That is essentially the situation being set up here. Many services provided by students associations are not exclusive. They are available to all student members in the form of facilities, cafes, and orientation week activities. Any student may use those services. I would love to hear from the proponents of this bill an explanation of how it is fair that some students will pay, while other students who choose not to pay will also be able to enjoy those benefits. That is not fair. It is unjust, and the students associations will be weakened.

Many students confronted with very high fees that are increasing year by year, the cost of study, inadequate resourcing, inadequate funding for texts, and so on, will be confronted with a rather difficult ethical dilemma of whether they pay their students association fee to rightly and reasonably get access to that range of services, or whether they choose a free ride on the back of their fellow students. Sadly, we know that a number of students either through ignorance or, perhaps, an undeveloped or immature ethical basis for their actions will choose the latter course, the free-rider course. That is unacceptable, and it will undermine the strength and integrity of the associations over time. It will mean they are unable to continue to maintain the level of service. They will not have a surplus to invest in increasing the services available. Any of us who has ever been to a university, as students, teachers, or casual observers, can see the value of the associations, which has been well proven over time.

I am also very intrigued by new section 229B, which states that no one may exert undue influence on a student or prospective student to join an association, to cease to be a member of an association, or to choose not to be a member of an association. I am really interested to know what the test for undue influence is. How does one measure or determine what undue influence is? I suspect that the students associations will work very, very hard at the beginning of each academic year to capture students, to encourage and persuade them to pay the money to become fully paid-up, legitimate members and to enjoy the services with a clear conscience. I would love to hear an explanation from the drafter of the bill about what constitutes undue influence.

Students can be very activist, shall we say, and very persuasive. They can use a wide range of means and inducements to encourage people to join, particularly people who are at the beginning of their first year. I suspect that if a student is captured at the beginning of their first year, they will very quickly discover the value of membership and will continue to be members of the association throughout their time as a student. What would be a reasonable limit to inducements, persuasive techniques, or attractions that a student body might offer to prospective members? Similarly, what would be undue influence in terms of those remaining few on campus who choose not to go down that road? Kia ora.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : Clause 6 is the main part of this legislation, which Labour will definitely vote against. The bill has been wrongly called the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause makes it absolutely clear that there will not be any freedom for students to choose what to do about their association membership. In fact, this bill makes it compulsory for students associations to be voluntary.

New section 229A outlaws the right for students associations to choose to be voluntary. Why does it do that? It seems to do so because there is no call on our student campuses in this country to have voluntary students association membership. If there was, then there would be no need for this bill. If there was a call for students associations to be voluntary, then that would be happening right now, because the proponents of this bill would be able to get more than 10 percent of students on a campus at any given time to actually call for a referendum to make it so. That is what the current law provides for. It states that, yes, the student body can make a decision for student association membership to be voluntary, just by having 10 percent of the student body ask for such a referendum to be held.

The ACT Party has convinced the National Party to support an entirely new piece of legislation making it compulsory to be voluntary because its members on university and polytechnic campuses up and down the country cannot organise 10 percent of the student body to say that they do not want to have compulsory student membership. They cannot get that 10 percent. So why is National backing something that it cannot get even 10 percent of the student body to ask for? But it is worse than that. I sat on the Education and Science Committee in its journey around New Zealand listening to submissions. There were 4,800 submissions on this bill. Ninety-eight percent of them were opposed to the bill.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: No way.

SUE MORONEY: The member should do the figures. Ninety-eight percent of them—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Well, they’ll presumably join the union, won’t they?

SUE MORONEY: It is about 4,700, give or take a bit. Not only could the Government not get 10 percent of students at universities and polytechnics to say they wanted the associations to be voluntary but also it failed to listen when that 98 percent of submitters said “Don’t do this. It is wrong. It is backwards ideology.” It just goes to show how out of touch the Government has already become in its first term. The Government is completely and utterly out of touch with New Zealanders. The National members in the Education and Science Committee heard submission after submission saying that this is the wrong thing to do, and they completely and utterly ignored them. The Government has also ignored the fact that not even 10 percent of the student body will actually get up and fight for the bill under the current law, which they can do right now.

Hon Tau Henare: What’s wrong with democracy?

SUE MORONEY: That is what I would like to ask National members. That was a very good question from Tau Henare, because he knows all about the legislation. He was the architect of the legislation that exists right now—I applaud him for that. Now he is having it ripped apart for reasons of ideology, and no other reason—no other reason, at all. It shows how joined at the hip National has become to ACT ideology that National is prepared to support this legislation.

Jo Goodhew: Oh my God, and you say that the same week as the marine and coastal bill.

SUE MORONEY: Jo Goodhew seems to object to being called joined at the hip to ACT. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because she recognises that not only this legislation but a whole range of ACT policies are completely and utterly unpopular in the New Zealand environment. It would certainly be a very good call if Jo Goodhew recognised that.

I ask what the problem is that we are trying to fix with the bill. What is the problem that this part of the law, in particular, aims to fix?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : As other members on this side of the House have said, we are absolutely opposed to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will start by covering the change to insert new section 229A, “Membership of students associations voluntary”, in the Education Act 1989.

This legislation is unnecessary. There is no problem that it is trying to fix. It is not in the interests of the majority of students—ordinary students, who are just trying to get through their qualifications and trying to live from one week to the next. They are not interested in this legislation. They did not call for it. In fact, this change—especially new section 229A—will drive up their student costs. Their tertiary costs will be driven up by this change. Their cost of living will go up even further than it already is doing. And for what reason? To satisfy the whim of a small number of ACT on Campus members. That is it. This change was not called for by thousands of students. It is not a response to many, many students across the country coming forward and asking for this change. It is a response to a tiny number of students who are aligned to the ACT Party and who, for some reason, want to put ideology over common sense. That is all the change is about.

New section 229A, inserted by clause 6 of the bill, states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” There is a very simple solution to this problem, which the Education and Science Committee seemed to be looking at until the very persuasive Mrs Roy returned to the select committee. That solution is simply to give students clearer options for opting out of a students association. That would solve the problem. If that really is the problem, that option would solve it.

I think we really see what the bill is all about when we look at the changes to clause 6 that were made by the select committee. I am particularly interested in the change to insert new section 229B, which refers to undue influence, in the Act. I think the changes made by the select committee to new section 229 are very good. They are appropriate, because they balance the issue of undue influence by the multiple parties that might be involved in influencing someone to become or not become a member of a students association. The original wording of new section 229 was all about how students associations—those nasty, evil, horrible students associations—were not allowed to exert undue influence on any student. That is what this bill is all about. It comes from an ideological position that students associations are bad: that they are a bad thing, that they exert pressure on students to become members of students associations, and that Parliament should be doing something to undermine students associations and get rid of them.

The change made by the select committee I think is appropriate and balances things out. The new wording states that prospective students cannot have influence exerted on them to become members of a students association, but nor can they have undue influence exerted on them to not become members or to leave a students association. That change appropriately reflects the fact that there is a range of opinions out there for students or institutions. There is an important amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of Grant Robertson to include institutions in new section 229B. Institutions may also be guilty of exerting undue influence either to get students into students associations or to keep them out, depending on the institution’s philosophy towards students associations.

I can absolutely understand why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join the students association. It gives the institution a point of contact with which to relate to students. It is much easier for institutions if they have a strong students association not only to provide the many, many services that students associations provide but also because the institutions themselves have acknowledged that they will have to pick up those services if the students associations are weakened. That is one reason why a tertiary institution may want to influence students to join a students association, but I think it is absolutely appropriate that that amendment should be included to ensure that institutions cannot influence a student to go into a students association or out of a students association, or encourage them not to join a students association. I appreciate the fact that the select committee has looked at the ridiculous original—

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, which is before us in the Committee tonight, is an attack on vulnerable students, on quality education, and on fairness. It is all being done in the name of the Government pandering to ACT Party ideology.

I address clause 6 because it is the main part of the bill and because, as members know, we fundamentally oppose this part of the bill, which undermines the ability of student representation to organise and provide invaluable services for students and to organise to do good in the wider community.

I have not spoken in this debate until now. It has been many a year since I was a student.

David Shearer: Not that many.

CLARE CURRAN: It has been a few years. I was not active in student politics at university. I attended the odd protest, but my activism happened in other forums. But I was a beneficiary of student services and good student organisation. I will talk about good student organisation and the value it can bring to a community. I will talk about the organisation I have observed amongst our student organisation in Dunedin in recent weeks following the Christchurch earthquake. They have played a critical role in our wider community in organising to do their best to bring relief to the people of Christchurch. If the students had not had an effective student organisation, that action simply would not have happened.

I will give just a couple of examples. A thing called the “Christchurch Embassy” was set up in Dunedin the week after the earthquake. It was essentially based at the Dunedin Railway Station to provide a place for people fleeing from Christchurch to go and a central point to receive services. It was set up by a group within Dunedin that included student organisations. They sat around the table right from the very beginning and initiated that really important service. Those students also organised the assembling and sending of 18,000 packed lunches to Christchurch. They organised and sent teams of people to Christchurch. That action would not have happened without the good organisation that they provide.

That is just one example of the benefit that student organisations can bring to the wider community. As I said, I was a beneficiary of the student organisation when I went to university. I used the services that were made possible by it and I happily paid those dues. Under clause 6, which I think goes to the real heart of this bill, this Government will force all those students associations to operate an opt-in system of membership, rather than allow those students to choose between opt-in and opt-out systems through referenda, as is the case under the current legislation.

It is funny that a bill taking away so much choice has come from National and the ACT Party, which normally love to throw around rhetoric about the nanny State. In fact, in continuing to push this legislation through the House they have ignored the 98 percent of submissions to the Education and Science Committee that were against voluntary student membership.

We know that students do not want this change. It is blind ideology. Students associations were open to make opting out of membership easier and fully refundable. They were open to the option of mandated 5-yearly referendums on association membership. These compromises are being put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 191, which would amend this clause and would make a real difference. My colleague Grant Robertson and other colleagues have appealed to National members to see reason on this bill and vote for these amendments.

The important services provided by students associations include things—

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) : Opposition members have made a number of claims that are just not technically correct. They have also put forward a large number of amendments to clause 6 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It is the substantive part of the bill, and it does warrant some comment, and, in fact, some straightening out of some of the propositions that have been made and the claims that have been put forward. So far I think during every single clause that has been debated—and we are on to clause 6—members of the Opposition have stood up and said that that was the clause that will be the end of student representation. Every single clause, apparently, is the important one that will be the end of student representation. But let me say that a number of things do need to be addressed.

Addressing the comments of Clare Curran, who has just sat down, I find it quite sad that she said the only reason that good is done in the student community is that students associations exist. Well, I say to the Opposition that one does not need laws or compulsion to do good in the community. The example that was used, the Student Volunteer Army in Christchurch, was not in fact organised by the students associations. They had a part to play, but in fact it was organised by one National Party supporter, who set up a Facebook page. Students saw that page and, out of the goodness of their hearts, went to help in their local community. It was nothing to do with the fact that those people had to belong to a students association.

The claim was made by Grant Robertson, I think, that students have been successful only because of students associations. That claim will come as news to most students, who would say their success is due to their own hard work, not to the existence of a students association.

Grant Robertson: What happens when things go wrong?

Hon HEATHER ROY: Talking about things that go wrong, let us look at the referendum provision that exists in the current law. We have had that provision in place for 10 years, and the sponsor of that particular provision had a conversation with me to say that the reason he now does not support it is that it has not worked. It has not worked, in terms of the criticism we have had in this debate, because students cannot get the 10 percent required. There is no way they will get support from students when they put forward referenda provisions in the middle of exams. That has been done in countless places. Waikato is probably the best example, where referenda are routinely put forward in the middle of exams when students are quite rightly focusing on the work they are there to do.

The other thing that has not worked is the opt-out provision. Members opposite say we should just enhance the opt-out provision. The opt-out provision has not worked, because the students associations want that money; they want the guaranteed income. The opt-out system has not worked, because the students associations have made students jump through hoops to do it and they give up in frustration. They give up in frustration.

Sue Moroney: So fix that!

Hon HEATHER ROY: We are not fixing that, because then other loopholes will be found. There should not be an opt-out provision.

The financial impropriety—which members opposite have not mentioned once in the whole debate so far, and which warrants comment—has been the result of the guaranteed income that students associations have because of compulsory student membership. The financial impropriety is a result of the lack of transparency and the poor accountability. If members opposite took a moment to flick past new section 229A, as set out in clause 6, they would find that the lack of transparency and poor accountability are being addressed in this bill, and that is extraordinarily important. The fact that Labour members are prepared to compromise on so many parts of this particular clause—and we need just to quickly look at Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Paper to see that—shows how fearful they are of losing control of the campuses.

Chris Hipkins and a number of other members talked about the overwhelming number of submissions that were opposed to the bill during the select committee process. Let us be very clear about how those submissions were formatted and put forward to the Education and Science Committee. Out of the 4,800 submissions, 300 were substantive submissions. The rest—the other 4,500 submissions—were in A4 form. Those 4,500 submissions effectively made up a petition. They were not substantive submissions; they were all exactly identical. I have had students tell me that at many university campuses tables were set up in front of the cafeteria and students were not let through until they signed one of those forms, which were then put forward as substantive submissions.

Sue Moroney: Oh, what rubbish!

Hon HEATHER ROY: Sue Moroney can say until she is blue in the face that that is not true, but I can tell the member that a lot of students have told me that that is exactly how those forms were collected.

David Clendon from the Green Party stood up and gave the most to-the-point and genuine speech I have heard tonight. He talked about fairness. This bill is exactly about fairness. This bill is about fairness for students, who should not be compelled to join a students association in order to study. They cannot do one without the other, and this bill is about fairness to students. It allows them the choice to decide for themselves whether they pay a fee and belong to a students organisation. It allows them to study and move ahead with their lives. A member asked what the problem was that we are trying to fix—I think it might have been Sue Moroney. The problem we are trying to fix is that students are currently the only group in our society who are forced to join an organisation in order to be able to do what they are there to do. The fairness aspect is being fixed, and I look forward to this debate continuing with some honesty in the debating points.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I am very pleased to rise and take a call in this debate. We are on clause 6. I would like to respond to the member Heather Roy’s comments with the honesty she requested.

My comments essentially go like this. Clause 6, which contains all of the substantive parts of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, reflects the fact that this bill is simply the result of flawed tactics on the part of National. National members have now found themselves backed into a corner by a minority party that is pursuing this bill on the basis—let me give the member credit—of some principled position, without considering, however, the practical outcomes of the bill. That is a travesty of this House’s purpose. Of course bills should be brought here on the basis of principle, and they should be submitted to a select committee, to our democratic process, for improvement. That is what happened with this bill. But for the National members of the Education and Science Committee to then suddenly fold their arms and say they would not have any more to do with the arguments put up by submitters is a fault and an inadequacy on the part of tacticians in National.

Let me explain that a bit further. Clause 6 says membership of students associations should be voluntary. If Heather Roy indeed brought this bill to the House on the basis of the neo-liberal principles on which the ACT Party hangs its hat, then all credit to her. But for National then to concur with legislation that is going to ruin part of student life in New Zealand and part of the life of tertiary institutions is simply wrong. It means there has been insufficient thought applied to this legislation by National. Once National members worked themselves into this position of not seeking improvements or amendments to the bill, they persisted in sitting as they are now—each of them, to a person, with their heads down, not looking, and not engaging—because they know that that position is a failure on their part. They are standing up for legislation that will wreak havoc and cause something that significantly contributes to tertiary education in this country to grind to a halt.

It is a nonsense to say that clause 6—and I am looking at the new section 229A, which states that membership of students associations is to be voluntary—will benefit the student population, the tertiary experience, or even the institutions in any way. Besides that, there were almost no submitters in favour of this legislation. Why has National capitulated in this way on an imperfect bill that will have practical and pragmatic outcomes that are destructive? Why would it back itself into that position? Why have its members still not had the courage to say—not one of those members has said—why they have changed their position, why they have not sought improvements, or why they have not sought amendments to the bits they might not agree with? If there are problems, I say to Mrs Roy, with the way students associations have operated, if there are problems in that people have found it difficult at times to get out of a students association, then why not simply address those issues? Why cause this destruction?

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : I begin by congratulating two members of the ACT Party on remaining true to their neo-liberal origins, which is something that the other three members have not done—or, at least, two and a half of them have not. But as is the case with the ACT Party when it does remain true to its neo-liberal origins and becomes consistent, it is also within the bounds of possibility that it is consistently wrong.

Society ranges itself variously either collectively or individually. One can call it user-pays or payer-uses; one can call it public sector or private sector. All economies are mixed—all economies are mixed—and they always will be. It is always better to have a payer-uses society to deliver health services, for example, and a user-pays society to deliver whatever it might be—fruit and vegetable services. It is always going to be mixed. Students associations themselves are economies that are mixed. They provide their pastoral services, their welfare services, and most but not all of their health services on a payer-uses model. On the other hand, for example, advertising in their radio or print media is on a user-pays model, and they charge like wounded bulls. So students associations have a mixture of ways in which they build their revenue base.

The reason they have a mixture is that it is sometimes more efficient to use user-pays and it is sometimes more efficient to have payer-uses. If one gets rid of payer-uses, one ends up with less efficiency and lower delivery of some things that students have erstwhile considered important, including welfare, pastoral, or health services. Of course, some of the services, such as agitation, advocacy, or whatever, also come from student fees, and that may be something that the ACT Party members would like to raise in support of their position.

But the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of the revenue collected from students for students associations is spent collectively on things that students in general over the years have found useful. How do I know this? Well, because for 20 years I have been the member for Dunedin North. My electorate office is next door to the Captain Cook Tavern. Not a week in the academic year goes by without students coming to my office to see me and my staff over something, and that has been going on for 20 years. There are now 19,000 of them washing through the place every 3 or 4 years. It is like a transit camp. In that time, in those two decades, not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of this legislation—not one.

Not one student has darkened my door to speak in favour of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and yet we say we are a democracy. We say we are a democracy, we say the majority are entitled to have the sway, except in this instance where we have a 3.5 percent party having its way with a party that is supposed to be principled, to overturn something that no student in my electorate in over 20 years has ever asked for. That is outrageous. It is outrageous, because ACT members say they know best, but they are not part of this debate. They are not at university as far as I am aware. I was at university last year and I had to pay student fees to Victoria University and I did not use the services. That is what happens with payer-uses. Sometimes I do not use the health services in this country, either, even though I am paying tax. It is still the most efficient way to run those services. Yet ideology is being rammed through and is skewering common sense.

As my colleague Maryan Street pointed out, National members sit there and say diddly-squat. They know in their hearts that it is a bit awkward. They know in their hearts that back at their polytechs and especially at their universities they will have to face some difficult questions. They know there will be destruction of services but they sit there, because somewhere at some stage there needed to be some trade-off to make sure that that coalition partner of this ill-begotten Government would get its jollies over this legislation. That is not a good way to run a country. It is not principled, it is not called for, it is not democratic, and it is not popular.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I will start by addressing one or two of the things that Heather Roy mentioned when she made her addresses before. She said, first of all, that one does not have to have a students association in order to be effective. She gave the example of the Christchurch earthquake. I am not sure whether that was true; I seem to think that the students associations had a greater role than she talked about. But somehow, she says, students do not need a students association in order to be mobilised and effective. If that is the case, I ask Heather Roy why a student body cannot mobilise 10 percent of students and come up with the numbers needed to force through a referendum. Why is that not possible? On the one hand it does not seem that students need to have a students association to be effective, but on the other hand a student body can never be effective enough to get that requisite 10 percent.

Heather Roy also talked about the idea that a students association—or a student union, as the ACT Party prefers to call it—is one of the only organisations left in this country that is compulsory, and for which one has to pay a compulsory fee. I think this is a wrong characterisation of what a students association is. David Caygill and his son made an extremely good presentation to the Education and Science Committee on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, in which they argued that this fee is more akin to a tax than a union fee. In the same sense that people who belong to, for example, a council pay their rates, students pay for things that they may not use, but they pay for the sake of the greater good. The fee is compulsory only if students do not want to force a referendum through, but they are paying for something that people, overwhelmingly, get great benefit from. I think that is the crux of the argument regarding clause 6.

I come back to the point that Heather Roy talked disparagingly about Grant Robertson’s Supplementary Order Papers 190 and 191 and his other amendments. But many of those amendments were an attempt by members on this side of the Chamber to come to some sort of compromise so that this bill would be palatable legislation that might have some endurance out there rather than, come November 26, be targeted for elimination. This bill could have actually been better legislation, which might have had the agreement of all sides of the Committee.

Heather Roy is absolutely wrong—and here are the facts. If this legislation is passed, the students associations will wither considerably or disappear. That is a fact; that is based on evidence. It is based on the experience of Australia. What happened there? Students association membership dropped horrendously. Let me give members the statistics that came from the Australian students associations, representatives of which actually came before the select committee by phone. They said the associations had effectively collapsed, or had drastically reduced their services and implemented user-pays in many areas, which had disadvantaged many of the students, particularly those from low socio-economic areas. Tertiary institutions there have taken over services and assets previously owned by students. Here is the other thing that occurred when that happened: tertiary institutions began to charge levies for reduced services—more money than the students were paying to begin with.

For most of the students associations—and I look at the Unitec one in particular—we are looking at paying about $120 a year. Now, $120 is a substantial amount of money for many students, but the services that students get from that are way beyond what a tertiary institution would be able to provide. The secret is that the students associations have an army of volunteers. All of that will disappear when this legislation makes its way through Parliament.

I refer back to Grant Robertson’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 to add to new section 229A a requirement to hold a nationwide referendum.

STUART NASH (Labour) : I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill, and specifically to clause 6. I do so for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the fact that I have worked at a university and I know what a university student union does, and I have come to value it greatly.

The second reason I want to speak on this bill is that I went to the Eastern Institute of Technology, which is the Hawke’s Bay polytech, and spoke to the students about this issue. I spoke to the students about new section 229A, inserted by clause 6, which states: “No student or prospective student at an institution is required to be a member of a students association.” Do members know what those students said to me? They said that their student union would cease to exist if this bill goes through. The level of pastoral care that the student union provides is immense.

To me, it is like an insurance policy. Canterbury aside, I do not know anyone whose house has been burnt down, but every person I know who owns a house has insurance. That is what a student union is. The vast majority of students do not use the student union and do not require the pastoral care, but others do. Making membership voluntary will destroy the lives of students.

We have to remember that a lot of students are leaving home for the first time. They are facing a whole lot of pressures that they would not normally face and have not faced before. They will face those pressures, and now that those members are taking away that safety net and that pastoral care, these students will fail. The Government measures institutions on how many students pass. This change will ruin those statistics.

The other thing I would like to talk about is new section 229C, which deals with complaints. Section 229C(1) states: “A student or prospective student who, on reasonable grounds, considers that any person has exerted undue influence … may lodge a complaint with the council of the institution.” Section 229C talks about that whole process and about the university council. Anyone who knows about a university council or a polytech council will know the amount of work those people have to go through. It is an immense amount of work. It is like being a member of a board. These are highly skilled people who are time-constrained. They are sitting on a university or polytech council basically out of the goodness of their hearts, but also because they believe in the value of the institution. You tie up a university council with numerous complaints of this nature and I will tell you what: institutions will lose—

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was wondering when your being brought into the debate by the new member might be recognised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is quite right.

Hon Member: He’s not a junior member any more.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am on my feet. The member will be silent. The point of order is quite correct. The member should not bring the Chair into the debate.

STUART NASH: Institutions will lose council members. The council members who sit on the boards of polytechs and universities will say they cannot be bothered with it. They came to help with the governance of that university or polytech, yet they are spending 50 percent of their time—this is what the bill says—dealing with complaints from students. That is not what a university or a polytech council is for. Yet a huge chunk of this bill, section 229C, “Complaints”, relates to how councils will have to hear complaints from students who believe, on reasonable grounds, that a person has exerted undue influence. That is a waste of time.

This bill takes away any level of pastoral care that students provide to their peers, and it also takes away, I believe, the ability of very good people to sit on university and polytech councils. This complaints process is quite onerous. I think this complaints process, under section 229C, will dissuade students from complaining. In fact, this bill will become a bit of a nothing. Have members read what students have to go through? They have to lodge a written complaint, on reasonable grounds. It has to go to a university board, which sits about once a month. There will be a whole stack of maybe 10, 12, or 20 complaints. Then the board has to make a decision. Every student who lodges a complaint has the ability to be represented.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I move, That the question be now put.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This amendment was lodged and has been on the Table for some time. It does not do anything to the fundamental purpose of the bill. It simply adds to the clause. I find it incomprehensible that my amendment could be ruled out of order. It was accepted by the Clerk some time ago and has sat on the Table for some time, within the Supplementary Order Paper. I simply do not understand at all how a ruling like that could be made.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I say to the member that, firstly, just because his amendment has been tabled, it does not mean to say it has been accepted. As to the fact that the amendment has sat on the Table all this time and the member has not had any report back on it, there is no requirement for that. The process of the Committee is that amendments are put on the Table, and when they are put before the Committee the Chairperson makes the decision to accept them or reject them. So let us deal with the process—there is no process other than that, and there never has been, and I doubt that we will ever see a change in the process.

The second element is that it is the judgment of the Chair, on the advice of the Clerk, that the amendment is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. That is the ruling, and I regret to advise the member that there is no appeal authority on this. There is no other jurisdiction, and correspondence will not be entered into. That is the end of the matter. The amendment is ruled out of order.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What role does precedent play in a decision such as this? I refer you particularly to an almost identical bill to the one that we are currently debating, which was voted on in this Parliament in either 1997 or 1998. The original bill was almost identical, and an amendment almost identical to Mr Robertson’s amendment was accepted by the then Chairperson. I was not here at the time so I was not involved. But there is a precedent that that amendment was deemed to be within the scope of the bill. The ruling you have made is inconsistent with that ruling, so I am asking you what role precedent plays in decisions such as yours to make such a ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, there are two things. I say to the member that as a wiser man than me, the Rt Hon David Lange, said one time, consistency is the last refuge of a fool. But having said that, the point is that this is a new bill, a new day, and I have made the ruling. I have made the ruling that the amendment is out of order, and I am not going to go back to it. The member’s point of order is seeking to challenge that ruling. The matter is closed.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 205 in the name of Gareth Hughes to new section 229A in clause 6 be agreed to.