Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : It is interesting on this day, when we have debated the Budget Policy Statement, that the first member’s bill the Government is supporting—immediately after we have had a debate that has shown that the Government has walked away from its ambition to take this country into the top half of the OECD by 2011—and the very first piece of legislation we are about to debate is Matt Robson’s Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the bill that Labour said, 2 weeks before the election, it would not be voting for. This is the bill that Labour said, as it was drawn out of the ballot, that it would not be voting for. This is the bill that will be another compliance cost—another cost on business. Business New Zealand has come out today and said that this bill, with other measures that the Government has passed, will add costs in total of around $7,000 to every business in New Zealand. This is not a bill that is encouraging jobs. This is not a bill that is encouraging growth. This is a bill that is an obstacle to jobs and to growth.

This bill will also be a test for the United Future Party, which, just a week ago, voted with the Government against business, against employers, and voted for extra costs on employers with the Holidays Act review. Once again we will see in the House today the United Future Party being tested on this legislation.

This legislation will be considered by the Government as part of the holidays review and will be reported back to the House this side of Christmas. So much for the Prime Minister’s promise to business before the election that 4 weeks’ leave would not be on the agenda—a hollow promise, a broken promise! This is like the promise the Government broke to superannuitants that it would deal with asset and income testing last year. It broke that promise last year. There are members in this House—and Mr Hughes is one of them—who wrote to their local Grey Power saying that it would be OK and would be fixed because there would be a new bill before Christmas.

Well, Grey Power is laughing at those members now. Grey Power knows that Mr Hughes and those other members broke their word on that promise, just as business knows that Mr Hughes and Labour members of Parliament have broken their word on this legislation.

We believe it is important that this country grows. We believe it is important that businesses are encouraged to hire staff. We believe it is important that where a business is doing well the businessman or businesswoman thinks that with a bit of stretch he or she can hire a new person. It means taking a risk; it is another wage they are responsible for. Business people know that when they hire staff it is hard to get rid of them, but they take the punt and create the extra job. This bill tells business not to do that, not to take the risk, because if one takes the risk, then the cost starts to outweigh the benefit of hiring the extra staff.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) : Like other members of this House, I spend a lot of time in airports, often late at night, and I see people—usually women, usually Pacific Island women, at that—who clean those airports late at night. I want members to imagine the way they have to get up in the morning, make the lunches for the kids, and get them off to school. They might have a part-time job during the day, and they have to pick the kids up from school, make their dinner, then go out to work again cleaning floors and toilets, and then try to get some rest before they start over again the next day. This is the life of many people who enjoy no more than 3 weeks’ annual leave. Governments, parliamentarians, parties, and communities, need to do what they can for those families. They want to work hard, and we should encourage that—and they do work hard. God forbid that I had to work as hard as some of those people, as a matter of fact. We should reward their hard work. We should ensure that parents have time with their kids and time to recuperate, as well.

I appeal to United Future members, who, I understand, will be voting against this bill. If they are the family-oriented party I believe they are, then I cannot understand why they do not have empathy with the families I see living under the stresses of the workloads they have to take up in order to look after their kids. It is for working families like this that we need to make progress. It is for them that I support this Matt Robson bill and this part of the whole holidays legislation.

I have not broken any promise on this. I went into the last election campaign, and many others, committing myself to 4-weeks’ paid annual leave for individual workers and families. The whole point of economic development, surely, is to improve the social and economic well-being and standard of living of all New Zealanders. It is not possible to develop the New Zealand economy meaningfully without lifting all New Zealanders up in the process. I want all those who oppose this bill to state clearly how much leave they take each year. I want them to state why they deserve 4 or 5 weeks, or more, while working people, with the least bargaining power, deserve only 3 weeks. Those are the people whom I, Matt Robson, and others in this Parliament want to support. Do we work harder than women who raise a family and work in poorly paid jobs early in the morning and late at night? Is that true? If it is not, then why do we not support giving those people this chance?

I make the point that this Parliament, in its whole history, is the only place that has ever provided for paid holidays for workers—in 1946, 1974, and, hopefully, 2003. The only place where provision has been made for that is right here in Parliament. Interestingly enough, it was either Labour Governments or Labour-led Governments that did it. I hope my Labour colleagues are able to convince some of their colleagues that this is the time to do it, because I want to be in Parliament to make sure of it, either this time or next time.

If we are serious about supporting families—and all of us say that we are family oriented and that we are for families—then we will support this bill. This bill should be renamed. Instead of being the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill it should be the “Holidays (More Time for Working Families) Amendment Bill”—more time for the mothers and fathers who look after their kids, and work at the same time, to get a break; more time for parents to spend with their kids; and more time for working people to interact with their community, their social and cultural organisations, their churches, and so on.

Four weeks’ minimum annual leave is part of the solution to two significant problems facing New Zealand workers: overwork and underemployment. It gives workers more time away from the workplace, and, in a small number of cases, employers will hire staff to cover those breaks. I just say to employers in New Zealand—and I was one of them—that I gave all of my workers 5 extra days’ leave a year, and we had 5 long weekends right through the winter months. The productivity in my company did not go down; it went up. People were not taking “sickies” and trying to pretend they had something else to do. They knew that the time would be there for them to do it. Productivity rises when wages and conditions are lifted and when one has respect for working people; it does not diminish.

Every single time that this Parliament has legislated for holidays for workers, some employers around the country have said the world would end if we did it. They said it the first time—in fact they said it when Christmas Day was made a public holiday—and they have said it every single time since. I do not see New Zealand being sunk into despond or becoming a Third World country because we have paid holidays. Many countries in Europe have had 6 weeks’ paid leave for years, for generations, and some of them have the highest living standards and the highest-performing economies in the world. So I say that this is an issue whose time has come. If we want higher incomes, then we need to increase incomes, not cut them. Improving conditions such as this bill does, is part of that methodology.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : There is one thing I like about this bill, and that is the size of it. It did not take long to get through the paperwork on it. United Future opposes this bill. Many would be tempted to support it. Who would not like 4 weeks’ holiday? Even with provision for 3 weeks’ annual leave, in a society where people are working 24/7 very few people are able to get 3 weeks’ holiday in a row, especially small-business owners—and 95 percent of our businesses are small businesses. I think they would love to get even 10 consecutive days’ holiday in a row.

According to public comments from the member who is sponsoring this bill, annual leave falls into two categories. The first relates to compatibility across countries. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Greece, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, and Norway give workers 4 weeks’ paid holiday leave, whereas France, Denmark, Austria, Spain, and Finland give their workers an entitlement of 5 to 6 weeks’ paid holiday leave. About 17 out of 29 OECD countries have more annual leave than New Zealand, but that also means that 12 OECD countries have less, or equal, entitlement. Most of those countries have higher rates of unemployment than New Zealand does, and have introduced extended leave periods—and, in the case of France, a 35-hour week—to soak up some of the excess workforce. Economists call this the “lump of labour” approach.

If the same logic is applied to the extension of leave in New Zealand to 4 weeks, one sees that it would aggravate the skills shortage that currently exists. According to the post-election briefing from the Department of Labour, about 95 percent of businesses in New Zealand employ fewer than 10 staff members. New Zealand has the highest proportion of small businesses than any other country in the Western World. In a supplementary question to the Minister last year, I made the point that a move to 4 weeks’ leave would increase the total cost of wages and stretch the staffing resources of small businesses, in an age when they are expected to operate 7 days a week and, in many cases, 24 hours a day. Every time a staff member goes on holiday or is away on sick leave, a tremendous strain is put on those small businesses and their owners.

In terms of comparability over time, the argument is that previous increases to paid annual leave—to 2 weeks in 1944, then to 3 weeks in 1974—occurred at 30-year intervals. The approach of that 30-year anniversary is not a sound basis for policy making.

The other argument proposed in favour of the bill is that by giving workers another week’s leave we might actually increase productivity. I agree that a rested worker might be a better worker, because I have seen staff members who work 7 days or 10 days in a row become like zombies. They do not know one day from another. That is very common in New Zealand’s workforce. United Future agrees that a better work-life balance is the key to improved productivity, but thinks that there are better ways to achieve it without the cost and strain that 4 weeks’ leave would place on employers. People today are placing greater value on a balance between their home life and their work life. Many people I know are taking a drop in income to have a better lifestyle. Firms are moving to alternative arrangements, such as flexible time, compressed weeks, and payment on the basis of productivity rather than the punch-clock.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust hands out awards each year to companies and organisations that it thinks are achieving a good work-life balance. For example, the Auckland University of Technology won an award for a scheme that allows staff to work for 4 years at 80 percent of their salary, and take the fifth year off. Research shows that a better work-life balance achieved through flexible working arrangements tends to increase staff retention, saving employers the significant cost of replacing them; reduce absenteeism; and increase job satisfaction. We think the Government should be encouraging that.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) : New Zealand First concurs with the sponsor of this bill, Matt Robson, when he states that stress, both physical and mental, has the potential for serious long-term health effects, and that long hours increase the feeling of stress and create an environment for high blood pressure to occur.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Catchpole, but I do not think it is correct that the honourable member John Tamihere can accuse the Chair of being stressed and not looking too good, and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that said. Did the member say that?

Hon John Tamihere: For the benefit of the debate, Madam Chair, I withdraw and apologise.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: High blood pressure is recognised as having a long-term health problem associated with it, and the hours that we keep in this House are sufficient to prove that. The high blood pressure and the stress that took place in the previous debate are testament to it. But I digress.

The long-term health advantages gained by reducing stress levels in the workplace will result in long-term economic savings, particularly if we view them as preventive measures. The resulting reduction in the health bill can only be positive. Why does not the Government spend more of its surpluses on health issues, as has been suggested by Mr Anderton? Because of those health issues, we welcome this bill into the House. We support qualified areas of it only, but we support it going to a select committee for further discussion and development, and to enable submissions to be heard from both the business community and the workforce.

As my New Zealand First colleague Peter Brown said last week, when he was speaking on the Holidays Bill, some people in this country are, in our belief, entitled to longer holidays than they are getting. We also agree with Matt Robson that a more rested workforce is, in general, a more productive one.

We do not, however, agree with Mr Robson’s simplistic implication that stress in the workforce is the cause of family problems, and is the main factor that damages families. Stress from unemployment has an equally devastating and damaging effect on families. That factor also needs to be kept in the minds of the select committee members when they consider the implications of this bill in the real world of commerce. This bill will have an effect on management’s decisions on whether to take on additional staff or retain existing staff, to meet peaks and troughs in production levels. The overall costs, including the extra week’s holiday pay, will most definitely influence management’s decisions. This may result in the opposite effect to that intended for this bill. Staff will be put under further pressure and further stress, either in meeting the increase in production levels or in finding themselves unemployed as management endeavours to cope with the increased wage costs.

The estimated cost to the business sector in real terms is approximately $500 million. Small- business owners will be the hardest hit, because they will not have the depth of staff to cover gaps. These are not the same gaps that the Government was talking about a few years ago; they are the gaps created when a key staff member is away on extended annual leave.

We have heard a lot over the past couple of weeks about catch-up with the majority of our OECD partners, and Matt Robson sees this bill as another step to achieving the Government’s goals and targets. I have a word of caution on this idea. Before we embark on achieving this target, the Government must ensure that the economy has also reached its targets; otherwise, we are digging a deeper hole for us to try to climb out of later on.

In conclusion, New Zealand First welcomes this bill going to the select committee, and I can assure Matt Robson that, in supporting it going to the select committee, we approach it with an open mind and encourage others to do the same, so that a broader view of all the aspects of the bill can be examined. We look forward equally to submissions from the business and employment sectors, together with those from employees’ representatives, so that this House has a fair and balanced view to consider at the end of the process.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I am delighted to take a call on the bill, and to congratulate Matt Robson on introducing it.

Rodney Hide: Why didn’t this member do it?

MARK PECK: This member has the next one coming up, so Mr Hide should just hold his horses; he will be able to take part in that debate, too, if he likes. [Interruption] Members might well say that, but I could not possibly comment. I do want to congratulate the member on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. We will be supporting the bill going to a select committee, because it deserves to be debated.

I say to members opposite that, in a past life as a union official, I became very, very aware of the argument that is going on now. Let me remind people like Sandra Goudie, who is sitting on the bench across from me at the present point in time, that the very same arguments that were used to decry equal pay for women are used to decry annual holidays. I was at the tail end, as a union advocate, of the implementation of the steps towards achieving equal pay for women. If we were to say today that we should have differential pay rates because of a person’s gender, we would be before the Human Rights Commission, and so we should be. There was no economic argument for women to be paid less than men, at all. There was not an economic argument in the world. It was about exploiting those workers. It was about their being of lesser value than their male colleagues. There is absolutely no difference between the arguments about holidays and the arguments about equal pay.

There is an economic argument that says we should not have 4 weeks’ annual leave right now, but I see absolutely no reason at all for the issue not to be debated.

Rodney Hide: Why not 6 weeks?

MARK PECK: In some parts of Europe people have 6 weeks right now. I would hazard a guess that some of those who control our companies have more than 6 weeks right now, but they see that as their right, as stress leave and so on—as if workers do not have to confront those issues.

Judith Collins: Name one.

MARK PECK: This place is one big holiday to that member. Nobody has ever heard of that member over there doing any work at all—not a skerrick of work. The only thing she has ever been able to do is to make inane interjections. Could I give her some delight: she is never going to have to worry about doing any work, because from the way that her side of the House is going, it will be the irrelevant rump of Parliament very soon as it is replaced by United Future.

Rodney Hide: This speech is stressing me.

MARK PECK: Rodney Hide said that member is stressing him, so she had better calm down. A lot of good work has already been done by this Government to start to restore the relative position that workers enjoyed. I am delighted as well to look at the Holidays Act, which was brought in by my colleague Margaret Wilson. When I look through the provisions in that bill, it is quite clear to me that the legislation promoted by Matt Robson should be considered in tandem with it. I do not believe that the economic argument around the provision of holidays has been properly examined. For people to say it is a cost ignores the other side of the equation, and that side of the equation does need to be considered.

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

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : It is not so usual to rejoice when another party’s member’s bill is pulled out of the ballot, but, in the case of this Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill, my Green Party colleagues and I were delighted when Matt Robson managed to win the members’ bills lottery towards the end of last year.

During both the 1999 and 2002 general election campaigns, the Green Party ran strongly on the promise that we would do everything we could, if we got to Parliament, to work for a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers. It is one of our central policy tenets that everyone should have the opportunity to live a balanced and holistic life in this stressed and hyperactive age. I think most people are all too aware these days that many people work too many hours each week, and too many weeks each year, while others have no paid work at all, or too little to survive on. It has been a great irony that, in an age of widely accepted mass structural unemployment, we have also, as a society, persisted in the belief that workers should be forced to work 49 weeks of the year, even though adding 1 week’s holiday would improve both their health and their productivity, while allowing for more jobs to be created overall, and for the work to be shared around more fairly.

Just a couple of weeks before the election last July, both Laila Harré and I spoke, along with other MPs of course, at a Business New Zealand candidates’ forum here in Wellington. A questioner from the floor asked about the various parties’ attitudes to the question of 4 weeks’ leave, and I am sure Ms Harré was as disturbed as I was by Steve Maharey’s assurance that Labour would not consider implementing 4 weeks’ leave during this Parliament. I thought that was an outrageous promise from a senior Minister in a Labour Party that still presents itself as the party most representative of organised workers. I am glad that some Labour MPs who come from a union background have evidently been willing and able to exert sufficient pressure within their caucus at least to allow Mr Robson’s bill to be carried forward to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration alongside the Government’s Holidays Bill, which went through its first reading last week. Over the weeks and months to come, the Green Party is keen to work alongside those MPs, and with unions and other groups in the community, to try to ensure that, in the end, the Labour Government will support the extension of minimum annual leave from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. Matt Robson has given the Labour Party a golden opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of ordinary workers, and I hope it makes the most of it.

I am well aware of the storm of employer outrage that is likely to accompany this bill when it goes to the select committee. However, I would like to say to people who are pressing the panic button on this one that 4 weeks’ leave will not really bankrupt business or impact adversely on unemployment rates. Many companies and employers already allow their staff a minimum of 4 weeks’ leave without their operation being brought to its knees. Instead, such employers reap the benefits of employees who can enjoy the simple human need of 4 weeks’ rest and time with their families. I am sure that not too many among the employing classes, or among members in this House, make do with less than 4 weeks’ holiday a year. The Green Party believes that 4 weeks’ leave is the minimum that all workers, not just some, should be able to expect in this country in the 21st century.

I would like to note my amazement at the speech made by my United Future colleague earlier on this evening. He made clear that his party will be opposing this bill. I find that approach incomprehensible from a party that talks about the importance of work-life balance and the importance of family. Of all parties in this House, United Future should be supporting this bill.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) : I rise to oppose this bill. I certainly understand what Mr Robson is trying to do here. Unfortunately I do not have a lot of sympathy with anyone who wishes to be generous, and to take the claim for being generous, with other people’s money. That is what this Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill is all about.

It may as well be the “Holidays (6.2 Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill”, because that is what it is talking about. If we add on the 11 public holidays that employers already have to pay for, if we put that into the equation, the total is 6.2 working-weeks. That is actually an awful lot of time.

Sue Bradford has commented that the bill is not necessarily going to break some employers, and she has also said that some already provide 4 weeks’ annual leave. Well, is that not the point? There is nothing to stop any employer and employee from negotiating to have a 4 weeks’ annual leave provision in an employment contract. That already happens now. But that is a matter of choice, and often the trade-off is for those employees not to work as many hours during the day, or to have more flexibility in the sort of work they do. Certainly, this bill would remove the option for employers to say: “I tell you what: I can’t pay for you to have the 4 weeks’ annual leave that you want, but I will allow your school-age child to come along to the place of employment after school and do homework here, so that you’re not having to rush home or to worry that the child is at home alone.” There is that sort of provision, and it is not silly. It is the sort of thing that happens all the time between good employers and good employees.

I point out that 85 percent of business in this country is small business. I was surprised at, and disappointed in, the contribution made by New Zealand First. I always knew it was against big business, but I expected it to be for small business. So it was very disappointing. This bill is in fact removing the option for the small-business employer and employee to sit down and negotiate something that works for them. It is taking that away. It is imposing another cost. It is just another one of the costs that this Government, along with the Progressive—I cannot recall what those members call themselves now; I am sorry but I cannot remember their name; it is the PC party—impose in whatever they do. They are happy to impose yet another tax and burden on employers and, by doing that, on employees. It means that any employer with, say, two staff will have to say: “I’m going to have to get someone else to cover for those extra days." or: “I have to be less generous and flexible in my employment relationship with the other member of staff who now has to cover for you.” There are all those sorts of things.

How many self-employed people in small business get anything like 4 weeks’ annual leave? The reality is it just does not happen. I see my colleague in United Future agreeing. One of the sad truths is that Christmas time, which we are told is a hard time for a lot of working people, is a very hard time for a lot of employers. The reason is that employers have to pay for all the statutory holidays around Christmas, and, often, that is also the time for staff to take annual leave. Guess what? Nobody ever pays bills in January; nobody ever pays businesses in January. I see that my colleague who has been in business is nodding. There is no money coming in in January, and the employers have paid out a lot of money in December, so they have a very, very lean couple of months. After that, of course, there are the tax bills due in February and March. Does anyone ever say to the employer: “Oh gosh, poor old you. Let’s give you a break on that.”? No. That is the situation with this bill; it is just making the life of the employer harder.

Why do that? Employers are not the enemy. They are, in fact, the people who—

David Benson-Pope: Support the Government.

JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, for goodness’ sake, Mr Benson-Pope! That member never stands up to take a call. Honestly, what is wrong with him? Just take a call!

Rodney Hide: He can’t speak. Helen Clark won’t let him.

JUDITH COLLINS: He cannot speak. All he does is interject. Poor old Mr Benson-Pope. It is the only way the poor man can get into Hansard.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : It is very good to see Mr Benson-Pope, for a change, seeking the call to make a 5-minute contribution to this House, and I look forward to hearing it!

There is nothing easier for politicians to do than to put their hands up and say: “I vote for more holidays for working people in New Zealand.” The workers would probably love them for it. But who pays? It is not Matt Robson who is reaching into his pocket to pay those people’s wages each week. It is not Matt Robson who is struggling at night with the crazy compliance costs that business people in this country have to face. No, no, it is not Matt Robson. It is business people who do not get 4 weeks’ holiday. Small-business people can be working 16 to 17 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 52 weeks of the year, providing the entrepreneurial leadership that provides us with the wealth that we enjoy in this country.

I know that David Benson-Pope scoffs at that. He would not know what it was to have to work, earn a dollar, pay the bills, and find the weekly wage bill. He is like all members of the Labour Party: they would not know how to turn a dollar. They say: “Let’s give everyone an extra week off.” When I called out to Mark Peck: “Why not make it 6 weeks?”, he said: “That’s a good idea.” Why not make it 8 weeks? [Interruption] I ask Mr David Benson-Pope why we should not make it 10 weeks. Listen to Mr Benson-Pope! He interjects for about 2 hours, he gets the call, and he is so scared that Helen Clark might hear him give a speech that he sits down quickly without uttering a word. He just wants to be part of the noise in the background. [Interruption] We also have the handbag for the Prime Minister piping up from the back row.

We heard a speech from Jim Anderton today. I have heard Jim Anderton give speeches before, and they are all extraordinary, but this one was up there. I want to share it with members, because it was extraordinary. He said that he was a businessman and he employed people.

Hon Richard Prebble: Making trolleys like tanks!

RODNEY HIDE: His business made trolleys like tanks that never went straight. I do not think his brother is so keen on them any longer. Jim Anderton said that he gave everybody an extra week’s holiday a year, and, he told this adoring House, productivity then went through the roof. If that is the case, why do we need this law? He is saying that all the business people who are struggling away are idiots who do not know what they are doing, because all they need to do is give everyone an extra week’s holiday and productivity will increase. If Jim Anderton truly believed that, he would not need this legislation.

I beseech this House: the people who will be hurt by this legislation will be low-income people whose small businesses will not be able to afford this measure. The people who will be benefiting from it will be overseas companies, which will become, at the margin, that much more successful.

It might make Matt Robson and Labour MPs feel good to introduce this measure. But the only way that we can have a better lifestyle and, indeed, more leisure is to create and produce more as a nation. Michael Joseph Savage knew that—that the wealth is created by the people. Our attention in this House should not be given to trying to pass a law to put wages up and reduce working time; our attention in this House should be given to enabling us to prosper. If we can prosper we can have a better standard of living, and, indeed, can work less. Nothing in this bill creates another dollar for New Zealanders—far from it. This bill is a costly measure. I heard New Zealand First tell the House that the cost will be $500 million.

DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) : May I compliment the member who has just resumed his seat. It is nice to see him back in the House and sitting so amiably with his party leader. I am grateful that he could drag himself away from his electorate office to address us on this important matter tonight. And, of course, I want to recognise the experience that the ACT party has as a good employer! ACT members are obviously well qualified to make a contribution.

I am reminded of an old story about draught horses in London. A few years ago draught horses worked a 6-day week. I do not know whether it was an ACT member or someone else on contract, but some bright spark came up with the idea of running those poor draught horses, which collected the rubbish, for 7 days a week as a productivity measure. There was only one problem. When the draught horses started working 7 days a week, half of them died. They could not keep going. Therein lies the great beauty of the concept of having appropriate leave for workers. Not only is it ethically the right thing to do, not only does it have good spin-offs, I say to our United Future friends, for families, who appreciate seeing the working parent home more often, but also it is better for productivity than our colleagues on the Opposition side of the House would have us believe. They know and I know that if one gets a bit of time off, one comes back to the job refreshed and ready to get stuck in—

Shane Ardern: There is no evidence of it in the member’s case.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: —even if it is in a milking shed in Te Kuiti. That member might have some vague and fond memories of being in a cowshed, looking up, and thinking that life is good.

Shane Ardern: Has that member been to Te Kuiti?

DAVID CUNLIFFE: Actually, I grew up in Te Kuiti, so there you go, mate! I went to Pukenui Primary School, and it was a bloody good school. Te Kuiti is a wonderful place—[Interruption] They still have the statue there, and I am surprised that member has not been to lay flowers at it.

I am very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee. The Government’s position is that Matt Robson’s bill deserves support to get it to a select committee, so that we get some submissions and some good debate about this issue. It is a process that the Government intends to learn from. It is also the Government’s position that it is not able to introduce 4 weeks’ leave during this term of office, although it is a measure that a number of members, including myself, have publicly committed themselves to supporting over the medium term.

It is also very important to note that the Government has moved on a number of fronts to improve the conditions of workers, during the last couple of years. We recently introduced fuller holidays legislation, which restored the right to time-and-a-half pay and a day in lieu, if one is forced to work on a public holiday. A niece of mine worked Christmas Day and New Year’s Day this year, and for what? Nothing more than her basic hourly wage of about $8 an hour. That is the sort of condition that workers are having to live with after the legacy of the 1990s. We are grateful that we got in in 1999, and were able to stop the other side’s iniquitous holidays legislation. It was going to say you could sell Christmas. You could sell your statutory entitlements for a few—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am really looking forward to this.

Rodney Hide: I am pleased that Mr Cunliffe is looking forward to this point of order. The member on his feet cannot accuse the Speaker of selling Christmas, or make the other accusations that he made. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise. He is not a new member, I think.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member say “you”? If the member did, would he please withdraw it.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be happy to, but I honestly cannot recall using that word. In any case, I certainly meant to refer to the Opposition, and should any other interpretation have been taken, I regret that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been dealt with. The member has acknowledged it.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a person is asked to withdraw, he or she withdraws. He or she does not get into a discussion about it. The point is—[Interruption] The chief Government whip is yelling out.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member whether he had said “you”. The matter has been dealt with.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: The point is the Labour Government has done right by working people, and will continue to do so. We have a raft of measures, to our credit, on our record, like paid-parental leave, which was developed in consultation with our colleagues in the Alliance. A lot of hard work went on over the last couple of years to produce that legislation, and we are glad to see that it is in place. And we are glad to see that it is up for review, to see whether the number of weeks are actually sufficient. As a new parent myself, I take a particular interest in that bill.

The Employment Relations Act has restored a sense of fairness and balance in the workplace after a decade of the Employment Contracts Act. The point is productivity has not measurably dropped as a result of the introduction of that great revolution in employment law, the Employment Relations Act, which still allows enterprise bargaining and voluntary unionism, and is hardly what the Opposition could paint as a step backwards in time. It is a forward-looking, modern piece of law. We have reformed health and safety law with a range of laws that allow no excuses for having unsafe workplaces. Around 500 workers are killed each year in industrial accidents or from work-related illnesses. That is a shame that we cannot allow to continue.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) : The Progressive MPs are pleased that a significant social reform that aims to provide greater quality of life for New Zealanders, particularly some of the lowest-paid and hardest-working New Zealanders, is now before Parliament for members to decide whether it will go for examination by a select committee. Four weeks minimum annual leave is a reform that a significant number of employees have already, either through their collective bargaining ability, the far-sightedness of their employers, or the scarcity of their skills. Those employees who are not able to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave require the assistance of their parliamentary representatives to ensure that they, too, benefit from the better health and well-being that would flow from that step. Even members who have doubts about the bill can send it to a select committee, so that it can be examined fairly and thoroughly.

The bill started out in life with the support of the two Progressive party MPs only, although I acknowledge that it is Green Party policy. Once the bill was in, we were quickly joined by the Greens—then we were 11. Next came those MPs who were convinced that such an important measure should be scrutinised by a select committee. In that camp were the 52 Labour MPs, the coalition partners of the Progressives. Then came the 13 New Zealand First MPs. From two, we became 76. New Zealand First’s deputy leader, Peter Brown, explained to the House last week that New Zealand First recognised that many workers were entitled to a longer holiday than they get. Thus New Zealand First supports voting this bill to a select committee, even though its members have expressed reservations. My Labour colleagues have shifted from a “no” to a “yes” vote. I know the fierce debate that has occurred within Labour over this measure, but I also know the determination of ordinary Labour Party members, the affiliated unions, and the majority of Labour MPs that Labour should hold fast to its traditions of acting on behalf of the most vulnerable. This bill will start its life in the select committee with more agreement than disagreement.

As managers and MPs know, a week’s extra leave is a benefit to health and helps to combat stress. Families, and those close to employees, benefit from the extra stress-free time to build on relationships. There is an enormous economic benefit to some areas of the economy, such as the do-it-yourself industry, recreation, leisure pursuits, and tourism. As international experience has shown, those benefits do flow through. Healthy workers require fewer sick days. Social equity requires ensuring that more vulnerable employees are raised to the levels of those whose strength has allowed them to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The Opposition centres on the one key fear that an extra week would put an intolerable financial burden on business—particularly on small business. I am convinced that the select committee scrutiny will show, from both national and international experience, that the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs, and that a rational society should concentrate on how and when to bring in this progressive measure, rather than if.

I am not surprised that National and ACT automatically oppose the bill. Those parties do not even want a select committee to probe the issue. That is a short-sighted approach. However, it is interesting that two parties that boast of their modernity are so frightened that a layer of business—and a layer only—will castigate them if they support the bill. They do not even want to examine why our major competitors with modern economies have long ago brought in this measure, yet are far above New Zealand in the OECD rankings. That is the approach of narrow, provincial, and parochial right-wing parties who seek short-term advantage. Yet those are parties that boast they want to be at the cutting edge of change. Their thinking is what gave us the 1930s depression mentality that we needed to cut the wages and conditions of New Zealand employees, cause deeper and deeper cracks in the economy, and worsen the living conditions and health of the majority of the population. It is the thinking of the Don Brash school of economics to have the unemployed gather outside post offices—even if we have sold them—and have them dig holes and fill them. They believe in intervention, but it is an intervention that takes the living standard of employees backwards, not forwards.

It was interesting to hear the speech from the ACT member, which showed that that party drips with contempt for the contribution of ordinary people to the economy of New Zealand. To suggest that workers would want 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 weeks if four weeks were introduced, shows that ACT members do not take any account of the common sense and the contribution of workers to the employment they have. We could argue the other way—that to improve their profitability there might be employers who would take annual holidays back to 3 weeks, 2 weeks, 1 week, or nothing. Both arguments are ridiculous.

The opposition of United Future is harder to fathom. It is a party that campaigned on the general slogan of having the welfare of our families uppermost. Its proclaimed goal was to strengthen families. Here is an acid test—a bill that will give families greater time together, that will improve the health of employees, and that will make sure that we go forward on this important social reform.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I move, That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be now read a first time. This bill arises as a result of the closure of the Weddel freezing works and the redundancies that occurred as a result of that. In particular, I acknowledge the efforts of my colleague Rick Barker, who was the original drafter of the bill, and who worked with people from the freezing works involved.

It is an interesting thing when people are made redundant. All the things that we hold precious in our society—having a family and a home, and the ability to participate in society—are predicated on being able to earn a living. Going through periods of reform, as we have done over the last couple of decades, means quite a lot of dislocation. As a result of that reform, workers went through periods of time in their lives where employment was anything but secure. The only way to compensate for the loss of jobs and the time it took people to find new gainful employment was through instruments such as redundancy. Some workers did not get any redundancy, at all. Those who did all too often found themselves in a position in which, if a company went belly up, their wages and holidays were protected to a sum of about $2,500—which was subsequently raised to $6,000—but no further. Ultimately, their ability to put their lives back together again became severely curtailed as a result of the loss of redundancy payments.

That is simply wrong. Anybody who thinks about it seriously will agree that it is wrong. Reorganisation is not the fault of an employee. It is not the fault of an employee that the economy went through such changes that companies went belly up. Many had given long and faithful employment to their employers during that period of time, and subsequently found themselves unable to do anything about the circumstances they and their families faced. The loss of that redundancy payment was, for many, the last straw. Anybody who has been involved in dealing with those matters in the labour market will tell stories about the effect that the loss of employment has on families.

The number of men I know—and I say men deliberately in this case—who could not go home and face their partners and tell them that they had lost their employment would normally make one weep. They just simply could not get up the courage to say: “I no longer have a job.” For months on end, many of them would deny to their partner that they were not working. That in its own right set up a number of very difficult situations for families, and family breakdown during that time was not an unheard of thing. There were also worse cases than family breakdown. When some freezing works were closed in Southland, a number of people finally could not cope any longer and committed suicide. It is a matter of concern to this Parliament. I say even to the members of the ACT party—and ACT members champion the cause of property rights to a high degree—that the greatest property right a person can have is the right to earn a living, because every other right that comes from that is predicated upon it.

This bill will protect redundancy as structured in an insolvency. It will amend the Companies Act to make redundancy payments a preferential claim when a company goes into liquidation or receivership. The workers from Weddel had to line up with all other unsecured creditors for their redundancy payments, and it is now a matter of record that they did not get what was owed to them. They believed—quite rightly in my view—that should their employment with the company cease, they would be compensated in some measure through redundancy agreements for their loss of employment. We are attempting to do that.

John Carter: What about the farmers losing their stock?

MARK PECK: As the member will know, the farmers did raise some very serious issues about what happened to the stock in that situation. The member will well understand that. I believe that matter also has some currency, but on this particular occasion we are dealing with the issue of redundancy, and I ask the member to consider that.

John Carter: I’m more worried about the farmers.

MARK PECK: The member might be more worried about the farmers, but he is not the only one worried about the farmers. It is very refreshing—and I note that Shane Ardern is sitting next to the member—that the National Party is worried about the farmers on this occasion. There are things that need to be done.

I am pleased that there has been some movement in this area, and I congratulate my colleague Lianne Dalziel on the work she has done. I also recognise the contribution made by Laila Harré to doing something about the insolvency laws. Some announcements have been made, and already movement has been announced whereby the employee priority will now include some measure of redundancy payment up to a maximum of $15,000. That is an enormous increase on the position we were at, and I pass on my congratulations to the Minister on that.

There is not much more I want to say about the bill, except to conclude as I started: when redundancy occurs, it is life-changing and devastating to those involved. The way that workers have been treated through the insolvency laws has, in many respects, been nothing short of scandalous, and has left many people unable to support even their most basic needs. It is time that Parliament addressed the matter. This bill is an attempt to raise the issue. The Government has made some moves on it, which I acknowledge. I seek the support of Parliament for this bill to go to a select committee, so that we can take the submissions and look at what further work needs to be done to ensure that when workers are faced with that dreadful position in the future, they do not face the same problems as the Weddel workers.

In closing, I want to make one final comment. This bill was introduced into the ballot in 1996. When I read through the explanatory note, I noticed that there was a comment about the Minister of Agriculture having plans for further meatworks closures. I am pleased to say that it is certainly not the intention of this Minister to close any freezing works, at all. However, as the bill had been printed it was far too late to change the explanatory note, which did, of course, relate to a former Minister and a previous Government.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : The National Party will be opposing the introduction of this bill. First of all, it is interesting that in the explanatory note the member states that he is bringing in the bill because he has been told that there are likely to be further meatworks closures. His explanation for that was: “Oh well, that is what we said when we were in Opposition and drafted the bill up. Now we are in Government, we don’t think there are going to be any closures, but we still want the bill.” That does not make sense. If the member is so confident that there are not going to be any more closures of meatworks, and that is the industry he is hanging the whole bill off, why introduce it? It simply does not wash.

Again, this bill that the Government is so excited about introducing is another that sends every signal to every businessperson who takes a risk, who creates a job, who enters into something that might be a bit risky but has the potential to provide growth for the country, not to do it. Now that the charm offensive is well and truly over, every single time this Government can, it says to business: “We don’t think you are valuable. We are not interested in you taking risks. We don’t want the jobs.” We are here today with the second piece of legislation in the last 4 hours that is anti-business and sends a signal to business that it is not wanted.

I say to the member that I have worked with the families of people who have been made redundant as a result of businesses going out of work. In the case of the meat industry, which he talked about, I have worked with farmers who have also lost a considerable amount because their stock happened, on the day, to be going through the killing chain. The member nods and says he is worried about those people, but where in the bill is the clause for them? Why did the member not put a clause in the bill that gave those people equal preference? Why did he pick out just one little bit? The salary that is due to a worker is given preference. Any salary that is due has a preference call. Any leave that is due has a preference call. Any holiday pay has a preference call. What the member is saying is that when his mates in the unions have negotiated—often by the use of industrial muscle—a pretty generous redundancy deal, that should have preference over and above anyone who has stock going through the system, for example, in a freezing works. That is not right at all, and I bet that the member will not go out and defend it in the rural parts of Southland.

I want to say to the member that it is OK for him to stand up and say that he feels for farmers, but he certainly has not put that in this legislation. I had a look to see what is in the schedule in which the member is trying to insert the redundancy clause. After paying the costs of the liquidator, the liquidator must next pay the following: “all wages or salary of any employee, whether or not earned wholly or in part by way of commission”… So employees get their wages—wages are the first thing the liquidator must pay. The second thing is all holiday pay owed to them at that time. The third thing is any compensation under the Workers Compensation Act. Employees have to be paid that. The fourth part moves on to one of the things that Governments are more interested in, which is tax.

Above all, there is nothing for people who have genuine stock caught up in the process. The member is saying: “But above all that, I want to put in that any negotiated redundancy gets preference over and above everything else.” If we are to get down to that level, if I were a farmer and sending my stock away, I would be looking for cash in advance. Business practices will be developed to try to bypass that redundancy clause, and that will not do workers any good at all, because at the end of the day the freezing works will say: “Well, you can have a generous redundancy payment, by which point we will have to have terms and conditions for farmers to bypass it; otherwise we will not have any redundancy payment negotiated into the contract, at all.” That becomes the choice. I do not think that what the member is proposing is sensible at all.

The member did not give the credit to the previous National Government that changed the law—I do not expect him to give us the credit, either—to make sure that wages, salaries, and holiday leave were paid before the Inland Revenue Department got its slice. When I came into this House in 1990—Labour had just been in Government for 6 years and had done nothing—a major company in Porirua went into receivership, and the Inland Revenue Department came in and had first dibs. The families on the Kapiti Coast in the Porirua area that were owed wages, salaries, and commission—because it was a clothing factory—got nothing. We changed the law so that wages and salaries did get paid out before the tax department was paid.

The member would have done himself a service by at least acknowledging that change, rather than saying: “That’s not enough; we want the union-negotiated redundancy clause put in there.” What that means is that all other businesses that have stock caught up in the process—it might not be a freezing works; it might be fabric or any of the other commodities tied up in the process—go bust. Their priority falls below the redundancy payment, so their staff miss out. If I happen to have a lot of fabric and send it off there, I am caught up in the process. My business and my staff miss out so that someone else can get redundancy.

How good is that, and how sensible is it to the process? Yes, it is hard for families who go through that, but the member should not pass a law that has a ratchet effect right through the economy. That is daft, and it is one of the reasons that we will be opposing this legislation. Not only does it send a wrong signal to business, it will mean that many businesses will have to move to a cash-upfront option. If someone is thought a bit risky, the business will move to cash upfront, and that person might be forced to go a lot sooner. It might help the minority in the strong unions that have a redundancy agreement, but the people down the track who provide a whole lot of other services, and who have stock, plant, and fixtures caught up in the business, are in the category of small employers. They do not have redundancy agreements, and when they get caught up in that situation, they go under—all because some large firm with a large union has a generous redundancy scheme. I do not think that is right, or worthy of the sort of priority the member is trying to give it. In the long run, I do not think it will help this economy to grow, at all.

It seems that a lot of Governments long ago abandoned—quite secretly, but now quite publicly—any idea of economic growth. I ask the member again, and I ask Government members, to think about the signal that this bill sends to people who are establishing and trying to grow businesses. This provision would be just another thing to worry about and have to deal with—particularly if they have a medium or small business that is dealing with some of those larger ones and are not sure about their own viability. One might ask them: “What is your redundancy agreement? Because if you have a generous redundancy agreement with your staff, then I want to be paid upfront before I deliver any goods or services to you.” I think that is just crazy, and we oppose it because of that.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my speech I forgot to mention that on first reading I want to refer the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First I say that this is one of a group of bills that seem to have found their way into the House at about the same time. We had Margaret Wilson’s bill on holidays and the way in which payments should be made for holidays, which we supported to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Mr Matt Robson recently introduced another bill about holidays, and we also supported that being referred to that select committee.

This bill has been touched on, insofar as its position in relation to the Companies Act 1993 is concerned, by the previous speaker, Mr Sowry. In terms of that Act, as he said, the liquidator gets paid out for all his or her costs first, and then, according to this bill, the wages and salaries of employees are to be paid out before holiday pay is paid out. As I read the bill—and I tell Mr Peck that I stand to be corrected, because sometimes that happens when a bill is being picked up for the first time—I see that that is an amendment to clause 2 of the seventh schedule of the Act that is being inserted as paragraph (ba), so it would be inserted after paragraph (b) and before paragraph (c). That is how I would read it.

Therefore, this bill states that redundancy payments should be made before amounts due in respect of any compensation, or liability for compensation, under the workers’ compensation legislation. I really find that extraordinarily strange, because one of the most hard-fought things that any Labour movement ever achieved was workers’ compensation. Here we have, in today’s economy, a minority Labour Government saying that redundancy payments, which are paid to a few, will take priority over workers’ compensation, which is paid to many people as of right because of the hard-fought actions of the trade union movement in the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s. I find it quite strange that redundancy pay, which is available to a few workers in big, powerful unions, will get priority over workers’ compensation.

As I said at the beginning, a number of these bills have been introduced in the last couple of weeks, and it is interesting that if this bill does go to a select committee, we will now have a group of bills that will cause a great deal of concern, especially to small and large businesses. I would be interested to learn from the promoter of this bill, or perhaps from a Government Minister, whether it is proposed that that committee will travel. I believe it would be very useful for the select committee to travel to Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, Dunedin, and to one or two other major towns like Tauranga, in order to get the view on the spot of small and large businesses. That is needed in order to expose Labour members of Government—who are mainly trade union officials—to the views of people who are involved in business.

I gave Mr Peck the courtesy of listening to him, but obviously he does not care about the views of other members of Parliament, as he stands in the House speaking to the Minister, Lianne Dalziel, with his back to me. Obviously he has no concern about what is being said about this bill, although I treated him with respect. That shows the degree of respect that Labour members have for this legislation—that they are not interested in other members’ views on it.

In the case of this legislation, if we have a plumber working for a freezing company and another plumber who is a self-employed businessperson, the plumber working for the freezing company might be paid redundancy, but the plumber in business on his or her own would get nothing and would also lose the money that had been put into the job. The plumbing contractor, having received no money and having put money into the job, would then not be able to pay his or her staff holiday pay if he or she went broke. This bill is anti-paying out holiday pay, in the event of a plumbing contractor going broke.

As there is a raft of bills currently before select committees New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, but members can see how sceptical we are about it. We would really like to see all the business groups in the country going along to the select committee and telling the trade union officials who make up the Labour Government and its select committees just what a nonsense this bill could be. As I have shown in that simple case, we will be doing the worker in the eye for holiday pay, and possibly even for wages, so that those workers who come under a big union and who have negotiated a redundancy payment can get paid first.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : As Mark Peck has said, this bill was inspired by the collapse of the Weddel meatworks in 1994. Those employees found they had no greater protection than other unsecured creditors in respect of their redundancy compensation. Under the Companies Acts of 1955 and 1993, when companies are wound up the order of payment for creditors is as follows: first is the receiver, second are debenture holders, which are usually a bank that has first call on the sale of the fixed assets, third are the employees, who are treated as preferential creditors for up to $6,000 in unpaid wages, salaries, and holiday pay, and fourth are customers with deposits for layby purchases and the Inland Revenue Department for unpaid PAYE and GST. Therefore, after the receiver, the preferential creditors—including staff, layby depositors, and the Inland Revenue Department—have first call on the proceeds from selling company stock, collecting unpaid debts, and selling assets with a floating charge over them. Almost everyone else who is owed money by a failed company—suppliers, contractors, landlords, staff redundancy payments, and the portion of wages and salaries above $6,000—are unsecured creditors and are paid if there is any money left. There is a risk there. Company shareholders get their money back only when outstanding creditors have been paid, so again there is a risk there.

Let us evaluate that risk correctly. When companies go broke, it normally involves a lot of human suffering for a number of people, such as the owners, the staff, and also various contractors and suppliers. There are normally no winners. The banks may be the odd exception to that because they seldom lose, as I have discovered. But life does involve risk. It is a part of life for us, and we all have to learn to handle it correctly if we want to get ahead in life. It is a risk to start a company. It may go broke and the owner will lose everything. It is a risk to work for a company. It may go broke and employees will lose their jobs. Likewise, it is a risk to do work for a company. Again, as we have seen, it may go broke and people will not get paid. All companies involve people, and people will get hurt if a company fails. But worse would be the situation if people were ever to stop taking risks, because we would achieve nothing. I have discovered that most people at the end of their life wish they had taken more risks, not fewer.

This bill amends the Act to make redundancy payments a preferential claim. In other words, it gives redundancy payments the same status as wages and holiday pay. When a company goes into liquidation or receivership, the bill also removes the $6,000 limit on all amounts due to employees. When looking at this bill to determine whether United Future could support it, we had to stand back and look at the bigger picture. In itself, protecting people’s entitlement to their agreed redundancy pay makes sense. However, when we look at it in the light that a company collapse is a disaster for many people, we have to ask ourselves whether compensation that is designed to remove some immediate financial worry associated with the loss of a job should take precedence over payment for work already done by contractors and suppliers, who also, as we have heard, have staff and families to look after. We feel we have to say no. Therefore, United Future will not be supporting this bill. We believe that work already done and due for payment must be ranked alongside, if not ahead of, redundancy payments.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party would like to congratulate Mark Peck on having this bill drawn out of the ballot, as it deals with a long-neglected aspect of company law that we believe should have been addressed well before now. Like Mr Peck, we believe that there should be more protection for employees’ redundancy entitlements when companies go under. When redundancy agreements are negotiated surely the whole point of them is to compensate workers for the situation they find themselves in when they lose their job through no fault of their own.

Company liquidation or receivership has become all too common a phenomenon over the last 20 years, and there have been many examples of workers losing everything they were owed in redundancy, even when their former bosses would themselves have wished for a far better fate for their employees. I am sure many employers have themselves felt grief as they have seen the Inland Revenue Department paid out, while people supporting families have gone on the dole, unprotected by any cushion of redundancy pay, no matter how long they have served the company or how loyal and productive a worker they have been. At the moment, when an organisation goes under, staff who become suddenly unemployed find themselves having to line up with what is usually a huge queue of unsecured creditors to take their chances on whether they will eventually get even a minor percentage of what they are owed in redundancy. This bill, if passed, will change all that by ensuring that redundancy payments will become a preferential claim in the event of liquidation or receivership.

A second welcome feature of this bill is the removal of the $6,000 limit on all amounts owed to employees, and the elimination of the current $1,500 limit on what a worker can recover in the event of an employer’s bankruptcy.

While this is a member’s bill, I do hope that Mr Peck’s own party will see its way clear to supporting the bill not only to the select committee but also through all stages in the House to become law before the end of this year. The Government, along with individual workers and unions, can be assured of the Green Party’s support for this bill. I look forward to the day that workers’ entitlements are given the same protection as those of other preferential creditors when the worst happens and an employer goes under.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member who was about to speak. I have made a mistake in the committee that I wish to refer the bill to. I want to refer it to the Commerce Committee, and I will move the motion at the appropriate time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is the member seeking leave to do that?

MARK PECK: As I understand it, it is a matter of a motion to the House. I am certainly not seeking leave because I do not think it will be granted.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : I understand the matter quite clearly. The member indicated in his speech the committee he will send the bill to—in fact, he did so by way of a point of order immediately after his speech. I do not believe that at this point, towards the end of the debate, the member can now change that. The bill has to be referred to that committee, unless he gets the leave of the House. We are more than happy for the bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That is the appropriate committee for this legislation to go to. If during the debate the member decides that he might not have the numbers on that committee, and he wants to refer the bill to another committee, that is something for the House or the—[Interruption] I am just waiting for Judith Tizard to calm down. If the member wants to move that the bill go to a different committee, that is something for the member to do by way of leave, or for the Business Committee to decide. But the member cannot just pop up in the House and say that he has changed his mind.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : You heard my speech, Mr Assistant Speaker, and during my speech I indicated that I was pleased all three of the bills I mentioned—the Holidays Bill, Matt Robson’s bill, and this bill—were going before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That was a major premise of my speech; I wanted submissions to be made on all three bills together. That would give the ordinary working man the opportunity to make one submission on three bills to one committee, rather than to have to split submissions between two committees. So I take the view that as he has indicated the bill was to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and that was a cornerstone of my speech—that is where it should go. If there were any question of leave, New Zealand First would oppose the bill going to any committee other than the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : This is actually quite an interesting issue, and not one that, I hope, we will deal with on a partisan basis. It raises quite an important issue in terms of the way bills are dealt with. My understanding is that the member in his speech did not refer to a specific select committee—which might well be regarded as an oversight. He should have referred to a specific select committee. Indeed, had he done so in that speech, then I think that the point raised by Mr Sowry would be absolutely correct. If he referred to the bill going to a select committee in his speech, then clearly the motion would have to be to refer it to that select committee, or leave would be required to change that motion. However, he did not do so, and raised a point of order. It is rather interesting as to whether a statement made in a point of order has the same binding quality as a statement made in the original speech. That raises a further question about whether it is permissible, in any case, for an amendment to be moved to the motion to refer a bill to a select committee. In other words, should you rule that the member has to refer the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—if the motion is that—presumably it is within the competence of another member to move an amendment that the bill be referred to a different select committee.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : I think that Dr Cullen is absolutely right. We have got ourselves into a very interesting position. Just to pick up on Dr Cullen’s point, I believe he is right that if the committee had been named in the speech, and in that part of the motion, then certainly it could not be changed. But I make this point: I think that raising the matter as a point of order gives it a greater significance, because I thought that the point of order was to correct the speech. I absolutely thought that that was the motion we were debating and discussing. I think that we have to take a bit of time to get this issue right because it could set a dangerous precedent. I am not sure what the answer should be, but I do counsel that we need to take a few minutes. Maybe I could give my speech, then there could be a ruling that was well considered, rather than made on the spur of the moment. I think that this is setting a potential precedent that could be quite dangerous.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : Just to pick up on Dr Cullen’s point, Standing Order 281 states that the member in charge of the bill determines where the bill is to go. The member did not follow the correct procedures but acted by way of a point of order immediately following, and stated his intention about the committee to which he intended the bill to go. I feel quite strongly that the member is bound by that. Dr Cullen is right in saying that another member can move an amendment, but that must be done before the first reading. So that amendment needed to be put on the Table before the bill was read for the first time. I have to say that I myself have tried to do the same on several occasions, and have had exactly the same ruling from the Clerk, which was that if I had not lodged an amendment before the Clerk called the bill, then the amendment could not be moved. I do not think that we should start a precedent now to the effect that during the whole process members may table motions to have things moved around.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for helping the House through that issue. It is arguable as to how we proceed, given that it was not raised in Mr Peck’s first motion. But the member may seek leave, and we will test the House.

Mark Peck: I do not want to seek leave.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): If the member does not want to seek leave, that is fine. There are other remedies, and we will move on through the speakers.

By way of addressing the issue that the Hon Roger Sowry raised, I point out that notice may be given before the first reading of the bill—which does not mean before the matter is addressed. It means before the House decides that the first reading has taken place.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is very important, and I want to make it quite clear, because I have tried that device before and clearly people may well now wish to use it. If a motion does not have to be lodged before a bill is read the first time—I point out that that is something I myself have tried to do and the Clerk of the House, Mr McGee, who was at the Table at the time, indicated to me that the amendment had to be lodged before the bill was called—and if, in fact, you are determining now that at any stage during the introduction speeches on a first reading members can lodge amendments to move bills around to different select committees, then I am happy to accept your ruling. But I want you to make sure that that is the appropriate ruling, because I envisage now that we will get ourselves into situations where we end up with a new procedure—lots of votes at the end of a first reading. We have not done so before, because those amendments have not been able to be lodged once the first speeches were given.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Standing Order 281(4) is quite clear. It states: “An amendment to substitute another committee or to alter any proposed special powers or instruction may be moved if notice of such an amendment is delivered to the Clerk at the Table before the bill is read a first time.” That is not the calling of the order of the day. The bill being read a first time occurs after the vote on the first reading of the bill. Logically, if one thinks it through, one would see that an amendment could not possibly be moved before the order of the day is called, because at that stage it is not known which select committee the member is going to move that the bill be referred to. The member is supposed to do that in the first speech given in the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for his assistance. The amendment that has been alluded to can be made at any time during the first reading speeches. I am aware of the Standing Order. The way I read the Standing Order is that a bill has not been read a first time until all speeches are finished and the bill is announced as having been read a first time. That is the way, I believe, the Standing Order will be interpreted. It is certainly the way I would interpret that Standing Order. An amendment can be made at any time during the speeches. After all, the motion is put not before the first reading, as in Mr Sowry’s interpretation; it is put once those speeches have commenced. So let us proceed, and we will see what happens.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : I thank colleagues for a very interesting insight into the Standing Orders. I do not think that Labour Government members will be surprised to hear that the ACT party will be opposing this bill. But I do want to say this: I think that the member in charge of this bill, Mr Mark Peck, is one of Parliament’s better parliamentarians. It was good to see him sit in this House, listen very intently to what Mr Roger Sowry had to say, and actually take it on board. I think that we have had a rare moment in this House. I always like members’ day, and today there have been three excellent speeches following Mark Peck’s speech, from Roger Sowry, Dail Jones, and Paul Adams. I have learnt something from every speech about this vexed issue. I was also very conscious that we had in Mr Peck someone who was listening to the concerns of members and taking those concerns on board. I found the concerns raised by those speakers to be overpowering and overwhelming.

I hope that Mr Peck does not mind me saying this, but when I went across the Chamber and asked him whether this was his bill originally, he said it had been in Rick Barker’s name. I knew that this was not Mark Peck’s bill from the start, because when one reads it one sees that it has a political statement in the commentary at the front of it. It states that a terrible thing happened with the Weddel meatworks closure back in 1994, and it goes on to state that the Minister of Agriculture was predicting more closures of meatworks. That is a political statement. Mr Peck recognised it as such, and said it was a reference to the former National Minister, not to the Minister in this Government. Yes, he agrees with that. What we have here is a bit of fun in Parliament, dating from the time when Mr Barker was in Opposition. The bill has wound its way through the ballot, and now Mr Peck, the parliamentarian, has had to take it over.

Following on from the previous three speakers, I have some questions for Mr Peck. He might not be able to answer them immediately, but I want him to consider them when this legislation is going through the Commerce Committee. First, what is the cost of this bill? What will this bill cost New Zealand? Will it cost nothing, a little bit, or a lot? I do not think we know the answer to that. We have no idea what this bill will cost, because we cannot perceive its full impact. It will not cost taxpayers anything, but in reshaping the parties who carry the risk in the event of a business collapse there will certainly be costs. The cost will not just relate to the shifting of preference from one creditor to another; it will be a cost in terms of changed, and potentially damaging, behaviour. When Mr Peck, as chair of the Commerce Committee, considers this bill, I ask him to give hard consideration to what the economic costs will be to New Zealand.

Second, I ask him who will pay those costs. I do not know the answer to that question. I do not know who will pay for the cost of this bill. What we do know is that workers’ redundancy payments are to shift up the list of creditors when there is a collapse. But who loses out? If workers who were to have lost out will now receive a redundancy payment, someone else has to lose. I ask Mr Peck not to treat this legislation as a free lunch for working people—much as our hearts might go out to them. Who will actually front up and make the payment? I heard Jill Pettis and Damien O’Connor call out that I do not have a heart, and that might be true. However, I ask them to consider whether they have a head. If they have heads, could they apply them to answering the question of who will pay? It appears to me that Mr Peck thinks this legislation is somehow a free lunch. But someone will pay.

I now ask Mr Peck to consider my third question: what will be the ripple effect of this bill on the economy?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I do not think that the honourable Rodney Hide realised he had 2 more minutes to go. After last night, everyone has become used to calm, collected, and friendly Committee stages.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member should make her contribution by way of her speech. She was late in rising to the call. The bell indicated the termination of the previous speech.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I was not aware that there were only 5-minute speeches in first reading debates. Obviously I have not spoken during members’ night for a while. What has brought me down to the House to speak tonight, after a long, long time, is Mark Peck’s bill. As Minister of Commerce with responsibility for this area, I have come here to signal the Government’s desire to have this bill referred to the Commerce Committee, so that work can commence on the policy that we have been working on as a Government since 1999. I have to pay some tribute to the National Government of the day, when it agreed, back then, to review both the personal and corporate insolvency laws. I say good on National for that. I am glad that it started that process, which we were very happy to pick up when we became the Government. We followed through the objectives that were set by the Government of the day for that review.

We were asked to look at a predictable and simple regime for financial failure: one that can be administered quickly and efficiently, imposing the minimum necessary compliance and regulatory costs on its users, without stifling innovation, responsible risk-taking, and entrepreneurialism by excessively penalising business failure, and one that distributes the proceeds to creditors in accordance with their relative pre-insolvency entitlements, unless it can be shown that the public interest in providing greater protection to one or more creditors’ priority debts outweighs the economic and social costs of any such priority. That is what we are talking about here tonight. We are talking about the public interest in providing greater protection to one or more creditors, with regard to the social cost of that priority not being accorded.

All that this bill does is to remove limitations. The Government has already decided to increase the amount that can be paid in the way of wages, holiday pay, and those other things we have talked about. That amount has been increased from the figure of $6,000 in the current legislation to $15,000. I would like the select committee to look at that in some detail. The bill proposes that there be no cap on the amount that can be paid, and I think the select committee should hear some argument on that. The second decision we have made is that redundancy compensation can be included within the cap. This bill makes it absolutely clear that wages, holiday pay, and redundancy compensation are all included within the concept of that priority.

It is important that we do give workers the ability to do something that they cannot do themselves. What sets them apart from some of the commercial interests is that they cannot secure themselves against company failure. The previous National Government was very much responsible for improving the situation back in 1993, and this is another chance for National to come on board, and to help to improve the situation even further. The whole point of the legislative framework is to provide protection for people who cannot protect themselves. Workers cannot secure the liability of wages or holiday pay earned, or, indeed, of redundancy compensation that is due and payable. I believe that is an important issue that does need to be addressed.

As I said before, a number of decisions have already been taken on the insolvency law review. We owe the tier one decisions to my former colleague Laila Harré, and I congratulate her on her work in that area. I announced the tier two decisions about a week ago. We have to remember that all those decisions are significant. There is no way that we could draft bills and introduce all the provisions, refer them to a select committee, and pass them through all the remaining stages by the end of this year. I therefore welcome this member’s bill in the House at this time, so that we can address this issue with due speed, and ensure that the sorts of examples we have heard from members on the Government side of the House and from the Green Party are not repeated in the future.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) : I am pleased to follow my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry in opposing this legislation. It is a matter of commercial reality that, in the years to come, some companies in New Zealand will fail. They will go into liquidation, and they will leave some employees who simply will not be paid their redundancy payments. That is a fact under the current legislation. The question we have to ask tonight is whether we should reconstruct the Companies Act 1993 in order to accommodate a scenario whereby redundancy payments rank ahead of secured creditors, and there is no cap on those redundancy payments—where the $6,000 cap in the current legislation is removed. Should we make that legislative move? I say no to that on a number of fronts. I say that not because we are unsympathetic to those New Zealanders who might find themselves in that position but because of the massive implications that it will have for economic growth in this country, and for the security of hundreds of thousands of small businesses across New Zealand.

Life is all about choices. As Mr Hide said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This issue is all about choices. As legislators, we face this simple choice. Is it more important to protect a very small group of New Zealanders, those employees who find themselves in the position of not being paid redundancy payments when the company that they have worked for is put in liquidation, or is it more important to protect hundreds of thousands of small companies all around New Zealand? I was in Auckland this morning, and I looked at some data there. I saw there are 109,000 small businesses in the Auckland region alone that employ 4.7 people or less. All those companies will be severely challenged by this legislation; let us make no mistake about that. I say that for one very serious and simple reason: if this legislation is passed, in the event that any small company deals directly with a large organisation with an extensive redundancy liability, it is very unlikely that the small company will be paid, and it risks the entire financial solvency of that company. Is that worth it? I say no.

The ramifications of that are huge. Members should think about that from the perspective of financial institutions. Which bank or financial institution in this country would want to lend money to small companies, knowing that they will be dealing with large organisations that will not pay them, causing their whole businesses to go down. In my electorate of Helensville there are many farmers who deal with large meat companies. They will be risking their entire businesses if this legislation is passed, and I simply say that that is wrong. What is so much more important for New Zealand is not to pass legislation that looks to protect a very small group but to provide a playing field that will generate the highest level of economic growth, so that we can employ all New Zealanders. We need to employ not just the New Zealanders who are in work today, but also the other 400,000 who are currently on a benefit. That is what we need to do.

We need to encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses. The message we have to send to small businesses is that if they set up a business and deal with large and small companies in a mature and well-thought-out way, their position is protected. That is absolutely critical to the integrity of the New Zealand business psyche. I believe that passing this legislation challenges that, and I will be opposing it.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) : I rise to speak briefly, obviously in support of this bill. I congratulate my colleague and former bench mate on his initiative in bringing this bill to the House. This bill is important. It is about the rights of workers, but it is also about employers, as well. As will have been stated by other colleagues from the Government side of the House in their contributions, this bill is about fairness.

I was very interested to hear Mr Key’s comments, before he resumed his seat, that we all have the right to make choices. I suggest to Mr Key that he has never been made redundant, because there is no choice when one is made redundant. Unfortunately, that happens to too many workers in the world, and not just in New Zealand. In the 1980s my husband and I were made redundant within 3 weeks of each other. Neither of us had any choice over that.

Shane Ardern: Under a Labour Government?

JILL PETTIS: Yes, it was. Neither of us had any choice over that, at all. I tell Mr Key that it was a traumatic experience. No matter how hard we feel that we have worked ourselves, for a short period in our life we have a sense—

Hon Roger Sowry: The member is about to be made redundant again very soon.

JILL PETTIS: Mr Sowry has not made me redundant twice yet, and I do not expect that he will do so in the future. During a short period of time in our life when we are made redundant, we feel that we have no control over our life. I ask the member to reflect generously on what that situation can be like for people, through no fault of their own. In many instances when businesses go under it is not because the employers want them to go under but because of a whole range of conditions and situations in the market at that time.

I am pleased to support this bill to go to a select committee. I look forward to a large number of submitters giving their views to the committee. I wish the bill a speedy passage through Parliament. While it may not be apparent at this stage, the bill is in the interest of both employers and employees.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I thank members for their contribution to the debate. First, I shall deal with Roger Sowry’s point that National started it, and, yes, perhaps I should acknowledge that. It is not being disingenuous. It was good work that—[Interruption] That is life, but at least I have an opportunity to repair it, so I thank Mr Sowry for that.

I say to Mr Dail Jones that I am aware of the history of workers compensation. Indeed, one of the solicitors in my town was one of the best exponents of ensuring that workers got the justice they deserved when they were injured, prior to our having an accident compensation Act. I would hazard a guess that in the situation where a person was made redundant, it would be most unlikely that that person would be on workers compensation. In fact, if we did the figures, we would probably find that the number of people in that situation was zero. But the speech was interesting, and I did enjoy it. Certainly, he raised some important points that will need to be examined by the select committee.

I say to the United Future member that I understand his position. I would ask that he come along to the select committee with an open mind. Let us hear the submissions, because I am mindful of the issues raised by my colleague Jill Pettis, and which I raised in my speech, about how people feel at the time they are made redundant. Until one has been through it oneself, one just does not know. Going home, fronting up to one’s family, and saying “I’m sorry but I can no longer pay our mortgage or put food on the table for the family.”—whatever gender the worker might be—is just the most—

Jill Pettis: Gut-wrenching.

MARK PECK: That is the word. It is the total loss of economic power to look after one’s family. All that I ask of that family-friendly party is that its members on the select committee think about that, because it is a matter of some real concern.

I thank Sue Bradford for her comments, and I assure her that we will put in the work.

Rodney Hide raised three questions—the cost, who pays, and the trickle-down effect. Those issues will need work. I hazard a guess that the cost will probably be zip, but the trickle-down effect is an important one. The bill will have an impact. It is quite clear that if money is put into redundancy payments, then it must come from somewhere else. That is work that does need to be done, and I am looking forward to submissions on that.

I have a couple of comments to make to John Key, who is obviously a rising star in the National Party.

First, I say to the member that it is useful to use correct statistics when quoting them back. Just sitting here and using my own “Peckometer”, I have worked out it is highly unlikely that there are 400,000 people on a benefit. [Interruption] It is a debatable point. The member has made his speech. There are 4 million people in New Zealand, and, of that 4 million, probably a good third are not of working age, and then there are senior citizens. If members are looking at those on a benefit, then I think they really need to do the figures as to the number on an unemployment benefit.

An Hon Member: It’s 125,000.

MARK PECK: I will accept that figure as a more empiric figure, and say to the member that it is, in fact, the lowest unemployment level we have had in a long time. [Interruption] Fifteen years, actually. I am hopeful that the bill will not be needed.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that any reform in this area does have an effect on companies. But I say to that member that my experience of 16 years as a union official taught me that businesses of the size he is talking about, with fewer than five employees, will not have redundancy agreements, anyway.

Shane Ardern: That’s right; they lose their jobs.

MARK PECK: The member is interjecting; he should let me finish the point I am making. I am taking this point seriously, so let me come to what I want to say about it. In those situations, those companies do close, and when they close the employees get nothing.

It has been a good debate. I thank members for it, and I am looking forward to the debate at the select committee.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) : I move, That the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): An amendment has been received from Dr Michael Cullen to omit the words “Transport and Industrial Relations Committee” and substitute the words “Commerce Committee”.

• A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I consulted the United Future members in the House at the time about their voting for the amendment. The indication was that they were going to vote for it. I think they might be confusing it with their opposition to the bill itself.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : We should have voted in favour of the amendment. My apologies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): There is confusion. We want certainty, so I will ask the Clerk to call the vote again.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder how there can be confusion when my understanding is that all the parties that voted to oppose the resolution to change the committee had talked about it and had decided that they were going to vote against it. Confusion arose only when the Deputy Prime Minister came in and started sending signals to United Future that it was to toe the line with Labour. If United Future votes the way that it feels, that vote should stand. United Future should not come in here and be bullied by Labour all the time. That is not very appropriate at all. The vote had been conducted, and people had voted freely in Parliament, as is their duty. That party should not now be given an opportunity to change its mind after being pressured by the Minister.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I am certainly not attempting to apply any pressure at all. I simply raised the issue because I thought there might have been some confusion about the vote, given that United Future is opposing the bill. A procedural motion about which select committee the bill goes to is a different matter. It is not at all out of order for a party to change its vote before the vote has been called, on the basis that it was confused about its position. That has been done a number of times.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) : I think we are in a very tricky situation, because I do think United Future is genuinely confused over this. [Interruption] I am being helped by the Hon. Roger Sowry. I went over and spoke to Paul Adams, and he said that, no, United Future did not want the bill to go to the Commerce Committee; it wanted it to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think Dail Jones was saying that, also. I consulted the Clerk about how the votes would be put, and I had an assurance from the United Future Party that that was how it would be voting. That is absolutely correct; I do not see anyone there who is going to take a point of order to disagree.

This is important. United Future cast its vote, as it intended. As it cast its vote Dr Cullen—I do not think it was intimidation; he is not a very scary guy, actually—did go red in the face, and did start waving his hands in a circular motion, indicating that United Future had got it wrong. I do not think he will deny that. Then he started to mouth—I could pick it up from here—“You voted the wrong way; we are upset.”; that is what I understood the mouthing to be. Then he took a point of order to say that he thought there had been some confusion on the part of the United Future Party. The United Future Party members quickly looked confused, then one of them jumped up and changed the party’s vote. That is a corruption of the voting process. I do not think there was any mistake whatsoever. United Future had told three political parties how it was going to vote, 5 minutes before it voted as it had said it would. Then it wanted to use a point of order to change its vote.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : First of all, I do not think it is appropriate for the deputy leader of National to suggest that we have been bullied into something. We are fully aware of what is going on, and we wish to amend our vote. There are no underhand tactics implied here.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT NZ) : I seek some clarification. I was of the understanding that once a vote is started it cannot be interrupted. I wonder whether the Assistant Speaker would mind clarifying that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have heard as much as I need to hear, and I thank all the members for their contribution.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take strong exception to the direct statement made by Mr Hide that there is corruption of the voting process. If he believes that, there is another way of raising that issue, as I am sure he is well aware, but to raise it in the House is highly offensive, and I take offence at it. I think he should be required to withdraw and apologise.

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) : I think Mr Hide was telling the truth. He was perfectly entitled to say what he did. If Mr Cullen does not like it, that is just too bad.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Let us settle down. I too took exception to the use of the word “corruption” by Mr Hide, but I think, in the context, it was not all that offensive. I will not require him to withdraw it.

Rodney Hide: I will withdraw and apologise, if you took offence, Mr Assistant Speaker. Then we can move on.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Hide. Where we are at is that at some stage there was confusion in the House, and there can be confusion in the House, or a particular member or party can indeed be confused. These matters can be dealt with, and should be dealt with, before the vote is declared. The vote had not been declared, and because of the confusion and all the help that the Chair has had, I will ask the Clerk to conduct the vote again.

DONNA AWATERE HUATA (ACT NZ) : I move, That the National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill be now read a first time. I propose to have this bill referred to the Education and Science Committee. The past year has been a roller coaster year for fifth form students who sat level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). It has been a roller coaster year for teachers of level 1. It has been a confusing year for parents, who cannot understand how the new exams work. It has been a stressful year for the first group of students who have gone through the system. They are the ones who have been on the back end of a mad scheme, set up by a small group of bureaucrats determined to cut down our academic tall poppies and level them all down to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity.

The NCEA moratorium bill is not a big bill. It does not say to do away with the NCEA. It does not say to turn back the clock and stop level 1 from proceeding. It does not even say for us to go back to School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate. It is saying that we should stop for a minute and reflect on what is happening here, because there is no doubt that what is happening is a disgrace.

The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), which represents 14,500 secondary school teachers, has resolved that level 3, which would replace bursary, should not go ahead before 2006 at the earliest. It is saying that schools and teachers need time to bed-in level 2, to get it right, to iron out the problems, and that schools should be given next year and 2005 to do that. It is also saying that there needs to be greater flexibility, and I agree with it. I predict that we will look back in 5 to 10 years’ time and rue the day that we let a fundamentally flawed exam system leach its way into the school system—leach its way into cutting down the tall poppies, taking away their incentive to excel.

The irony in all this is that it is not the future potential of the well-off, or those lucky enough to get into our top schools, that is at risk. The ones most at risk are those students in the poorest areas who have no choice but to go to a school where students have traditionally underachieved. Anyone who thinks that an employer or a university is going to think that NCEA qualifications gained at a decile 1A school, like Flaxmere College, or Tangaroa College, is the same as that gained at Havelock North High School or Samuel Marsden Collegiate School, for example, is being an optimistic Pollyanna. That is my view—an optimistic Pollyanna. Saying that the qualifications are the same does not make them so.

Let me make it quite clear: the students who will be most seriously disadvantaged from the NCEA, especially with this mix of internal and external exams, will be the very students whom the social engineers have tried to help—the ones who leave school without any qualifications other than unit standards. But employers are not going to look through all the paperwork to find out whether the paper was largely internally or externally assessed; they will look at the name of the school and jump to their own conclusions. That is exactly what will happen, and that is why students from decile 1A schools and the lower decile schools will be disadvantaged by NCEA in the long run.

The aim of this bill is very simple: it is just to provide a 1 or 2 year breathing space. We need some breathing space, because the implementation of the NCEA has been frantic, muddled, and confusing in this past year. I have to say that the Minister’s decision to delay the start of the NCEA until 2001 was a good decision, but even then the Education and Science Committee’s hearing last year into the implementation of level 1 of the NCEA uncovered a litany of problems—the sorts of problems that occur when the thinking behind the exams is wrong in the first place, and when the time and the resources simply were not set aside to ensure a smoother, less troubled first year. That is the problem with NCEA, I contend: it is the thinking behind it that is flawed.

My bill is a bit too late to do anything about level 2, which was pushed ahead this year, and I think I have made it pretty clear that while I am not a great supporter of the NCEA, I believe that we can yet avert a greater tragedy than the loss of School Certificate. Sixth Form Certificate has also gone, but many believe—and I am one of them—that it is not much of a loss at all.

However, bursary is another matter. Bursary is quite a different matter. Bursary is a gold-plated exam. It is gold-plated. Twenty years have gone into getting bursary to the point where it is today. It is now gold standard, and I cannot understand why we would want to tinker with it. Of course there are things we can do to improve it. Of course we can refine it. Of course there are many suggestions already on the table, suggestions from teachers that should have been followed years ago. Maybe now is the time to do it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is, I believe, a retrograde step. At the end of the day, employers know bursary. Tertiary institutions know bursary. It is gold standard. It is internationally recognised, and I believe very strongly that we should keep it just as it is.

The advantage that my bill presents to us tonight is that it gives us an opportunity to evaluate where we are to date with NCEA in its totality, but best of all, it will give us the breathing space we need to make sure we do the right thing. Let us just take one example. Why can level 3 and bursary not coexist? There is no reason that level 3 and bursary cannot coexist—no reason at all. The Minister’s argument that there are not two teachers per subject good enough to be chief examiners is insulting to 14,500 secondary school teachers, and to every single senior subject teacher in this country. The Post Primary Teachers Association has called it a laughable excuse, and I agree with the association.

I could accept NCEA if there were credible research to support it, but there is none. There is no peer review or published research that shows the benefits and advantages of NCEA. A small pilot was held, yes, but no quantifiable outcomes were defined upfront, no analysis was undertaken, and no research reviewed and published. If the research had been done, I believe that the kinds of bungling and resource issues that were brought to light by the NCEA inquiry last year would never have happened. So when parents claim, as they have, that their children are guinea pigs in a giant experiment, they are quite right.

It gets worse. No plans are in place yet for a major evaluation to be undertaken or for a major research project to be even begun. The Minister and his bureaucrats have said to us that they will wait until the exams have been in place for a few years. By then it will be too late. Habits will be in force and loopholes found, and problems that are unacceptable now will no longer seem as bad. In my view, it is time to have a breathing space, and I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the first reading of this member’s bill. The Government fundamentally opposes the bill. We are committed to the ongoing implementation and development of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and I do not expect that to come as a surprise to anybody here in the House. I expect that the National Party will also be opposed to this, given that NCEA was developed by National in Government, and in fact would have been introduced a year earlier, had it continued to be the Government. We believe that to impose a moratorium would be to waste the time and the energy of teachers, students, and schools, as well as the money of the taxpayers of New Zealand. We actually do not need a moratorium. NCEA is here to stay. Level 1 has been successfully implemented, and that was one of the good things that we noticed with the exams: the level of problems with the exams was, I think, less than we normally have had with School Certificate. There have always been problems with the exam system, but in fact things went remarkably smoothly. Given the level of discussion beforehand, it was amazing how little complaint there actually was about the conduct of the exams.

NCEA replaces an outdated qualifications system with a system that is flexible, has clearly defined standards, and recognises what the students in our secondary schools can do, rather than what they cannot do. I do not think anybody in this House can get up and credibly argue for the retention of a School Certificate system that automatically failed 50 percent of students. I cannot see that anybody can argue that that is a system that is good for our students’ self-esteem, self-worth, or even their likelihood of employment or being able to carry on to tertiary education. NCEA is the product of over 15 years of deliberation by the profession, employers, and politicians, and as I said before, it was developed by the previous Government, which had intended to introduce it in 2001. It is interesting that educational professionals by and large are still absolutely committed to NCEA in principle, even though they complained about the problems there were with implementation.

I think it is time for ACT to move on and be positive about the opportunities that NCEA offers. It was really interesting on the select committee that, when we had just settled on having the inquiry and had not even seen the submissions, Deborah Coddington, as a new member, came along, replacing Donna Awatere Huata, and said that ACT would be putting in a minority report.

Deborah Coddington: Not a chance!

HELEN DUNCAN: We said it was usual to wait until—

Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a new member and I seek your guidance on this, but if the member is reporting something I said to the select committee that is incorrect, is that acceptable?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is not a point of order, but I will ask the member who has the floor to come back to the bill, please.

HELEN DUNCAN: The point that I—

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am disappointed, Mr Speaker, that while Deborah Coddington was trying to raise her point of order, Helen Duncan stayed on her feet throughout, in a mark of disrespect to you. I ask that in future you just keep an eye on that, because I believe it is out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Jones. I take that on board.

HELEN DUNCAN: As I said, the whole point is that it is usual to get the submissions in, listen to them, and then make a decision about whether a minority report is needed. It did indicate to us that the mind of the ACT party was made up before the inquiry had even got under way. But in fact I do hope that the ACT party will, for the good of the students of New Zealand, support the continuation of NCEA. There were some problems with its introduction, but that is not unusual. Some of us in our investigation looked back at what had happened when School Certificate was first introduced, and the problems there were then.

Hon Brian Donnelly: We can’t look back that far. We weren’t even born then.

HELEN DUNCAN: We looked back at evidence about it. We know also that in the education system, whenever there is change there is upheaval, because teaching is inherently a stressful occupation, and when we add in change, particularly the level of change that came with NCEA, of course it puts stress on the system and on the people involved in it. Because there was, last year, a considerable amount of industrial unrest, that added to the stress. But we have, as a Government, committed resources to assist with the ongoing implementation of NCEA. The Government has looked carefully at the recommendations that came from the select committee and is indeed committed to ensuring that there is a smoother transition to the new NCEA system in the next 2 years.

More training for levels 2 and 3 has been made available this year, and will be made available next year. We will review NCEA before the end of 2005, and the Government will listen to the views of education stakeholders at that time. But this bill provides a moratorium of 2 years, and I cannot see that this will be of any use to anyone. It is simply going to delay the implementation and cause more stress. It would not affect the continuation of NCEA for fifth form students, but simply put a hold on things and stop the smooth progression.

As I said, the select committee listened very carefully to the submissions from a large number of people who were involved. t was really interesting that, although they saw problems with the implementation process, they had no quarrel with the actual system. In fact, every single submitter was clear that the NCEA was an improvement on the system that was there before; that it was going to be better for education and for students, and they commended the system to the Education and Science Committee. Yes, there were problems with resourcing, training, communication with the ministry—all those sorts of things. I am not trying to play down the issues that were very rightfully raised with us on the inquiry into the implementation of the NCEA, but, in spite of that, the net result was that everybody said: “It is a good system. It just needs to have the implementation improved.”

As I said, the select committee made some recommendations to the Government, and we as a Government are taking them to heart. But the committee also wrote in its report: “It is to be noted that the three key education stakeholders affirm their belief in the NCEA and ask only that lessons are learned from its implementation in 2002 and that the requisite resourcing is provided for its ongoing development and delivery.” That is the final conclusion of the report from the select committee inquiry into the NCEA. Therefore, I ask members to listen to that and to vote against this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The remaining speeches are 5 minutes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) : We know how far away the Government is from reality when we hear a speech on a key issue such as this from that member. I nearly choked when Helen Duncan told us that the National Certificate of National Achievement (NCEA) had been successfully implemented. Where was she when we heard submission after submission at the Education and Science Committee? The Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand said it was one of the worst examples of poor change-management that it had ever experienced in its existence. The School Trustees Association said it was a hopeless implementation; so too did those good union mates of the Labour Government—the Post Primary Teachers Association. All of them said it was a failure, and I just ask that member to connect with reality and admit that the NCEA has been one bureaucratic botch-up after another.

I also have to say to the member who just spoke, how can members opposite go around this country and give speeches about the importance of free education—one of Labour’s heartfelt founding principles—and then put up the fees for sixth form students this year from $25 to $150? That is a sixfold increase. When did Labour say that to the electorate last year? When we were in Government we increased the fees by 6 percent, and we were told by Labour that this was a threat to the principle of free education—despite the fact that it was less than the rate of inflation. Now, Labour has increased the fees by 600 percent, and it expects parents to be silent. National says: “Not good enough.”

In respect of the NCEA, it is time Labour fronted up and told the public honestly what changes it has made since it became the Government. Because the NCEA we have in schools today is not the NCEA that was ticked off by National in Government in 1998. There are two key changes that this Government does not want to talk about. The first of those is the Cabinet paper signed off by National, which said: “Let’s give students a mark out of 100; let’s tell students how good they are, or how not-good they are; let’s not put students into these crude bands, where we don’t care whether they got 66 percent or 99 percent.” Because 66 percent is not the same as 99 percent.

The second politically correct manoeuvre from this Government is that the record of learning, to be held by the Qualifications Authority, is no longer to record failure. Is that not just another dose of Labour political correctness? We are not allowed to mention this word “failure”, when it comes to education. We have this politically correct dishonesty, and members on this side of the House say: “Not good enough.” But members on this side of the House are committed to a qualifications reform. We are, we were in Government, and we still are. We say that we want a standards-based system, and we say we want a system that is committed to external examination.

That brings me to this bill, and I have to say to the ACT party that this puts a freeze on Sixth Form Certificate. This House has to front up and say that Sixth Form Certificate is the worst of our school qualifications. There is no external exam. We in the National Party believe in external exams. So why would we want to keep the Sixth Form Certificate? It has no external examination. In Government we were proud to move on from that, and we still say that Sixth Form Certificate is not an appropriate qualification, and we can do better. National says we are committed to a standards-based assessment and we are committed to external examinations.

We also want to be constructive, and I have to ask this question: this bill would freeze Sixth Form Certificate into this school year 2003. We are 6 weeks into the school year, I have to say to the ACT party. How fair is it to our 50,000 sixth form students, who are in the middle of starting—

Jill Pettis: 80,000.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is not correct. I say to the member opposite: “Get your numbers right!”. There are 50,000 students in sixth form, not 80,000. We know that the Labour Party is no good at maths, and she proves so again. I say to the House, how fair is it to those 50,000 students who are 6 weeks into an NCEA programme, to change the rules suddenly? I say it is not fair. That is why National says we welcome the debate on the bill but we cannot support it in the form that it is before this Parliament.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) : I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to indicate, as my colleague Helen Duncan has, that Labour will not be supporting this bill. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a success. I do not say that lightly, and that is backed up by numerous newspaper reports, which I read with a great deal of interest during the January period, because I was taking a particular interest in this issue. Comments have been made that the NCEA has been terribly disruptive to the schools: that the schools themselves, and the principals and senior teachers involved in the implementation of the NCEA, are not supportive of it. I completely refute those claims.

I am very pleased to say that I have a press clipping from the New Plymouth Daily News dated 14 January, in which a very, very good principal, Josephine Mikaere from Okato College is quoted as saying: “the spade work was really done when level one came in. Implementing level one was huge, but I think it was timely. The world is changing and our needs have changed, and so have opportunities for students”. I know Mrs Mikaere well. I know what a good-quality teacher she is; she taught my daughter when my daughter was at school. So I know that that is a very experienced senior teacher making those comments. Okato College itself voted to go ahead with level 2, and that school is representative of many secondary schools throughout New Zealand.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the NCEA was not introduced on a whim. Fifteen years of intensive deliberation took place between the teaching profession and the whole school community. As has been said, National itself developed the NCEA. Tragically, National underfunded the NCEA, and when Labour became the Government it increased that funding by several million dollars. There are 80,000 students in the sixth and seventh forms today—far, far too many young people for National to be playing petty party politics with, when their education is at stake. We want our best and brightest young people—and so many of them are our best and brightest—to be able to go forward in their educational advancement with some surety and security. We do not need to muck them around any more, as we try to implement the best possible form of an educational system for them. I do not say this lightly: those young people are our future. We do need to protect them, and we need to make sure that we have a system in place that will be in their best interests.

Let us dispose of this bill quickly, because we need our teaching profession and our young people to be able to go forward with confidence and with security.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I first have to comment on the statement made by Helen Duncan that we looked back to the introduction of School Certificate—that certainly must date her, because School Certificate was introduced in the 1930s—and to the statement by National’s education spokesperson, the Hon Nick Smith, that National believes very strongly in examination at the sixth form level. The question has to be asked as to why, for 9 years, National left in place an internally assessed Sixth Form Certificate, if it believed so strongly in examinations.

If this bill provided for a moratorium on the increase of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) fees, New Zealand First would vote for it, because the comments that were made by Dr Nick Smith are absolutely correct. The worst feature about the implementation of the NCEA has been the horrendous increase in fees, locking out the very students whom the NCEA was designed to accommodate. The members on the Government side of the House need to hang their heads in shame on that one.

However, this particular bill, to put it bluntly, is a nonsense. The horse has bolted. Level 2 of the NCEA has already commenced; it is well under way. This bill is simply an ACT gimmick. I draw members’ attention to its introduction date: 5 December 2002. How did ACT ever believe that it could get this bill through the parliamentary process before the end, at the very best, of the year 2003, when level 2 of the NCEA will have been in action for a whole year? Are we then to stop it after that year and go back to Sixth Form Certificate, for which we will have no grades to base it upon? This bill is simply an ACT gimmick. It should be noted, in fact, that only 14 schools out of 336 are not doing level 2 of the NCEA, even though they have the option of doing transitional Sixth Form Certificate—only 14 out of 336 schools. It is those 14 schools, and the people who surround them that, in fact, ACT is trying to curry favour with.

But there is an exquisite irony in the situation that we find ourselves in. It is pretty obvious that Donna Awatere Huata is passionate about this bill, and it is also pretty obvious that ACT is totally opposed to the continued implementation of the NCEA. I want to know—and I will certainly be listening to hear this—how many votes ACT will actually cast. Will ACT cast its full complement of votes, to record both Donna Awatere Huata’s opposition to the NCEA and the full ACT caucus’ opposition to it?

If ACT does not cast the nine votes that its whip carries, that will demonstrate that the only reason ACT is hanging on to Donna Awatere Huata is to have the $110,000 per annum that it is able to achieve by doing so. ACT can demonstrate how much integrity it has by the number of votes it casts, because ACT holds Donna Awatere Huata’s vote in its whip’s hand.

The Minister, Mr Mallard, delayed level 1 of the NCEA for one year, and there were still tremendous implementation problems. No one can deny that there were serious implementation problems and serious underfunding. There are still serious implementation problems that have to be overcome. But it is interesting to note that England has announced that it will throw out the A levels and O levels, and will introduce a system almost the same as the NCEA. I also point out that the conceptualisation and design of the NCEA was not National’s. It came about through the National - New Zealand First coalition. New Zealand First is proud of its involvement in the NCEA, because we believe that in the next couple of years people will understand the full, profound, and positive effect that the NCEA will have on our education system. We certainly do not pull away from it; as I say, we are very proud of it.

The system that existed prior to the introduction of the NCEA was far, far worse than the NCEA. People talk about percentages. Let me tell members that virtually no one understood what a percentage in School Certificate actually was.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) : I rise to express United Future’s opposition to this bill. No one, not even the Minister, could deny that there have been some problems with the realisation and the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I am hopeful that the Minister will take the findings that we have given him on board. However, our review was not intended to inquire about the efficacy of the NCEA as a qualification. There can be no doubt that School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate have, as others have expressed tonight, become outmoded. The NCEA does give students, parents, and employers much more information about the skills students have acquired than before.

There are still many bugs to iron out, but should we really do what the bill suggests and delay the implementation of level 2 of the NCEA for another 2 years? After previous delays to level 1 and a decision to make level 2 optional this year, schools, and even teachers, have decided that it is better just to get on with it and to try to make the system work as it is. The staggered take-ups have been disruptive to students. The current senior school year groups will potentially hold an array of different qualifications over different years for different subjects. I ask why we should prolong that instability for twice the number of students over an even longer period. A better option would be to review and revise levels 1 and 2 as schools work through them.

In the case of level 3, though, United Future believes we have a brief window of opportunity for scrutiny before it is introduced. Our concern is that level 3 must balance the consistency of skill-based education against the need to ensure a rigorous entry-level standard for tertiary education. United Future wants to ensure that level 3 has real academic value and rigour. One approach is to favour an initiative to restore the potential for bursaries and scholarships to encourage excellence among our children. We think the introduction of level 3 is an excellent opportunity to change the very low value and esteem that is associated with bursaries and scholarships, by markedly increasing their value. That will depend on giving level 3 some grunt as we go through the process. Moreover, United Future would want to look at the possibility of making level 3 credits available towards tertiary education. That would also help students to borrow less and thus not to get as much into debt as they do now.

We take the very practical approach that it is better to accept that the NCEA is here to stay and to work towards making the best possible system for our children, rather than to throw out the baby with the bath water. United Future opposes this bill.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) : The kindest thing I can say about this bill is that it has missed the boat. The year 2003 has already started, and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 is under way. I should know that; my daughter is in the sixth form this year. Therefore, the moratorium is pointless and this bill is redundant. Indeed, it is counterproductive. The kindest thing I can say about the member is that I am sorry that the ACT party refuses to cast her vote in favour of her own bill, whilst still collecting all the entitlements that go with her presence in Parliament.

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This debate is about the NCEA. The member, as have other members, is straying off the topic. I ask that you direct him back on to the subject.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that point. She is quite right. A number of members have drifted right off the bill.

ROD DONALD: I have actually almost finished, Mr Assistant Speaker. The NCEA is far from perfect, and I was surprised to hear a Government member claim that it was. The Government is on notice to address the deficiencies in the NCEA. As I mentioned earlier, one of my daughters is in the sixth form this year. That meant she was in the fifth form last year, and I was not impressed with either the implementation or the outcome of the first year of the NCEA. But imposing a moratorium on it is not the way to fix the problems. I hope that the Government does address them. We certainly will not be supporting this bill.

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) : It had not been my intention to take a call in respect of this very important bill, but I would like to say on behalf of National members, in the context of opposing this legislation, that in terms of where Donna Awatere Huata stands and where National stands there are significant points in common. National stands for educational excellence. We do not see in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) structural frameworks anything that is reflective of that position.

The bill itself may be without merit. That is certainly the position that National has taken. But the underlying ethos of the bill, which is all about choice and a commitment to not dumbing down our system, is something that we passionately believe in. It is a source of sadness that a number of schools have chosen to desert the NCEA framework and, instead, to pursue other options in the context of achieving favourable outcomes for pupils at their respective schools. If I look at, for example, what has gone on in the schools in my electorate that have opted for non-NCEA options, I see it is readily apparent from schools of excellence like Auckland Grammar and other schools that there needs to be a commitment given to standards in education that stretch and challenge pupils to higher standards.

I simply say that in seeing the end of this bill we should all do so with a sense of sadness that we have been committed to a pathway that is consistent with dross and not with excellence.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) : I rise to support Donna Awatere Huata’s bill. I do not think it actually goes far enough. I think we should go further and allow schools that want to dump the National Certificate of Educational Achievement to do so. It is always such a delight to return to this House and find that the standard of debate is as high as ever, and that members are so concerned about standards of education that they use a debate about such an important thing as a national qualification for petty point-scoring, nasty bickering, and misrepresentation of other members. [Interruption] Yes, I did go to the Education and Science Committee; it was one of the first select committees—

Darren Hughes: Once.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I am not on that committee; I was a substitute. It was one of the first select committees I went to, and I did say that I would be putting in a minority report—I did not say that it would be a negative report—and they all had a good cackle at my expense. I hope it made them feel very proud of themselves that they were so helpful to a new member. But I suppose that that is just typical of the cackling crones in this House.

I find it appalling that members who were considerably advantaged by national examinations like School Certificate and bursary are now forcing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) on to New Zealand youngsters. It is what a leading secondary school principal in New Zealand, John Morris, has called the most dangerous experiment ever foisted on to New Zealand’s children. The NCEA—the name just about sums it up. It is just an “achievement”, but the Minister calls it a triumph.

I wonder whether any of those members who speak so knowledgeably about it have read this article by Warwick Elley, an emeritus professor of education, who is writing in the latest Education Review. He writes that the assessment system does not pass, and that our students deserve better. Now Warwick Elley is not some right-wing ideologue. He is not even political about this issue, and, as I said, this is an issue that is above politics. But he writes that, despite the Minister being pleased with the first NCEA results, “a cursory glance at the summary statistics is enough to show how arbitrary and basically incredible the whole system is.” In that article, which I think every member of this House who is interested in education should read, Warwick Elley systematically sets out exactly why the NCEA is a shoddy, sub-standard, subjective non-qualification.

All this bill is trying to do is delay implementing the NCEA. Yes, it possibly is a bit late for level 2, but what about level 3? I notice that none of those people who use that excuse to oppose the bill bothered to pass an amendment to draw it out further. All this bill is saying is that we should proceed with caution. There is no need to rush this qualification on to secondary schools one year after the other, because that is dangerous. It forces level 2 and level 3 on to the same students who sat level 1. Those students are being used as guinea pigs, and they will leave school not with School Certificate, or Sixth Form Certificate, or even bursary, but a smorgasbord of nebulous qualifications that look like this sheet. Nobody can make head or tail of this record. There are no percentages. There is no clear direction to students, to employers, or to parents, of how well the students did. It just describes what they did: “interpret historical sources”, or “estimate and determine probabilities”.

Helen Duncan says there has been very little complaint about the NCEA. Well, she should have come to the ACT select committee inquiry that we took around the country. We heard from people like Martin Cooney, the ex-Post Primary Teachers Association president, who damned this qualification as a social engineering experiment foisted on to New Zealand children by the left-wing ideologues in the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. [Interruption] That was from one of Labour’s guys—not from one of ours. Byron Bentley, the principal of Macleans College in Auckland, calls it the biggest fraud perpetrated on New Zealand schools. A teacher at Macleans College said that the NCEA was like a new drug being dumped on the market with no trials and no peer reviews.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) : I am delighted to rise and reinforce the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill.

• Debate interrupted.