JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I am very pleased to stand in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill was originally brought to the House by the Hon Amy Adams of Selwyn in response to concerns that third-party businesses that are collecting on behalf of charities were taking proportions of the donations, probably far in excess of what donors were aware of. What this bill aims to do is to bring some transparency and accountability regarding that.

The bill has been through the select committee process. It has been through a number of readings, and we have had a number of submitters who have come and put their point of view across. We know that there is some degree of complexity around this, because there are organisations that do, in the first year of receiving receipts, have a large proportion of their donations going to those third-party organisations that are, in fact, bona fide organisations supporting very well-intentioned charities. There has been some concern that the extent of this bill would detract from those organisations’ funding processes. Because of that, there is a regulation-making power in the bill that is going to enable the complexities of those sorts of situations to be rectified. That is to be put in place so the bill does not act in detriment to the causes in which those charities are working, but at the same time it is also going to enable transparency and accountability.

I am happy now just to conclude my speech. Thank you very much. I do support this bill and the good work of the Minister, the member Amy Adams from Selwyn. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : It is a pleasure to join the discussion on this member’s bill from Michael Woodhouse and to confirm that Labour supports this bill. The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is a good bill that addresses an area of concern for the public, and that is why we are supporting it.

The bill was rewritten in the Commerce Committee to enable regulations to be made relating to disclosure by fund-raisers making requests for charitable purposes. Currently there are no rules on what has to be disclosed, except that no misleading or deceptive statements may be made.

It does raise the question of why, given that this bill has widespread support in the House and given that its purposes are clearly in the public interest, this is not a Government bill. There is a tendency for the Government to pass to members to handle as members’ matters, matters that, from the point of view of the Labour Opposition, are worthy of the support of the Government in a more formal way. It is thus open to the interpretation, or perhaps the misinterpretation, that it is trivialising matters that are of some considerable value—in this case, to the charitable and non-governmental sector.

In 2002 Consumer magazine conducted an inquiry into the Children At Risk Education Foundation, or the CARE Foundation, and found that 75c in every dollar was going to its telemarketing company. The issue was again raised in the media as a result of Epilepsy New Zealand’s decision to cut ties with the fund-raiser, the Epilepsy Foundation. In the last 3 years, according to Epilepsy New Zealand, the Epilepsy Foundation gathered $2.82 million in donations on its behalf, and approximately $2.1 million out of that $2.8 million went straight into the pockets of the telemarketers.

I think for the average New Zealander on the street, when they hear numbers like that, they just have to ask the question as to how that can be right, because they give generously to the purpose for which the telemarketing is being done, which is to help the vulnerable individuals who are the recipients of the care. They do not do it simply to patronise, in this case, some 75 percent of the margin going to the telemarketers. Another example: the telethon on TV3 for the benefit of the KidsCan charitable trust was in the spotlight for claims that less than 20c in the dollar raised was passed through to disadvantaged children. The trust recently announced that 80 percent of the proceeds were passed on to the charity.

In a former life I used to manage an overseas aid programme with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In fact, it was two former lives ago, but not so long ago that I have forgotten the level of the administration costs of New Zealand’s foreign aid. In those days it was 11c in the dollar, and 89c in the dollar went to the needy people in the countries—in that case, in the South Pacific—that New Zealand was seeking to assist. So if it is good enough for the New Zealand Government to manage its overseas aid endeavours on an 11 percent overhead, it is certainly incumbent on private marketing agencies to take less than 80 percent, and this bill is to be commended for shedding light on that issue.

Another example—and I hope the World Vision organisation will not mind me saying that I understand that its overheads are somewhat less than 20 percent. It is still not insignificant, but it is not at such a level that donors would feel aggrieved. In any case, those overheads are transparent in its accounts and are known to donors such as, probably, many of the members in this House who support children through that organisation. The Television New Zealand show Dancing with the Stars was also caught up in the controversy, with just about 60 percent of the money raised for charities by contestants actually making it to recipients.

The bill recognises the right of people to know where their hard-earned money will go: to the charity of their choice or to some profit-making third party. It is consistent with sound consumer rights principles like transparency and informed choice, and we need the Minister of Consumer Affairs to start addressing the important transparency matters for consumers, such as the actions of loan sharks.

I recognise the presence in the House of Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has done some useful work in that area, much of it at the prompting of Carol Beaumont, the former Labour MP.

Hon Ruth Dyson: All of it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would say “all”, in response to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. How can I put it—all the useful stuff in response to my former colleague Carol Beaumont.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What’s she doing? What’s she doing right now?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Is it not interesting how Mr Lotu-Iiga was woken from his slumber by the actions of the Labour Party—woken from his slumber. Look, it is remarkable. It is remarkable how some members opposite can make controversy out of a universally supported bill, even when I was paying him half a compliment, certainly not the whole compliment. But there you go. That is Parliament. No wonder the public thinks it is an acquired taste.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why are the Nats cutting up Sam’s seat?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is a very interesting question, and I say to my raucous colleagues we ought to be decent to Mr Lotu-Iiga for as long as he is here with us, because with the boundary changes coming, that may not be that long. It is very nice to see Jonathan Coleman here from saving the Western World from whatever it is he has been saving it from, and we hope that he is here for not too long as well.

But I go back to public accountability for charitable giving. Surely that is something that all members of this House can agree on, provided that it is not too burdensome. We say only the following: that this should have been a Government bill. The Commerce Committee is currently working its way through the consumer goods law reform, and that is another area where I anticipate there will be broad consensus in this House. I guess the public watching or listening in will probably be reassured to see Parliament actually can cooperate on quite a lot of things, particularly in select committee, and often on members’ days, when a common-sense idea is brought to the House. I commend Michael Woodhouse for doing so on this matter. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am very happy to continue the agreeable nature of this debate, which Mr Cunliffe has just referred to. This is a useful piece of legislation. It does some good and will do no harm, unlike some of the bills we see emanating from this Government.

Clearly the genesis of this Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill was a perceived need to protect charities that were employing third-party collectors, basically from being ripped off—to protect them against some of the more unscrupulous operators, recognising that some charities are run by some relatively unsophisticated people in a commercial or a business sense. It was important too—it was seen to be at the time and still is—that we retain the very high level of public confidence that when people make a donation to charity a substantial amount of that money will actually land in the coffers of that charity. We saw too many examples some years ago—and I note in fact that the first reading of this bill was in December 2009—when there did seem to be a spate of, and some visibility and some publicity about, some out and out rip-offs of charities by people who ought to have been working for them.

We note that there are something over 23,000 charities in New Zealand, registered charities, and somehow, I suspect, many of them at some stage have had a turn on Lambton Quay on a Friday morning. As a non-Wellingtonian, I have noticed with interest that whenever I am in Wellington on Friday I take care to have a few coins—inevitably there will be somebody gathering along the quay, and that is a good thing. They are all good worthy causes, and it is indicative of people’s willingness, both to contribute money and to collect—the people doing the collecting very often are volunteers, people who are working in a voluntary capacity.

I think we have to acknowledge that the voluntary and charitable sector does an incredible amount of unpaid of work in this economy, in this society of ours, and without it we would be the poorer in many ways. Any of us holding portfolios as spokespeople—or, indeed, as Ministers—would be hard-pressed to find a portfolio area that, at some point, at some level, in some context, did not rely on the goodwill, and the contributed time, labour, energy, and skills of volunteers and people working not for personal gain, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

In my own area of corrections there are some extremely effective organisations, voluntary community-based organisations, none of which have deep pockets or significant wealth coming to them, that do a remarkable amount of very good work, and, indeed, pick up the slack that sometimes Governments and the private sector leave behind. In the business area we see Business Mentors, an organisation that actively works to support new businesses, and new start-ups, not for gain, but simply because that is the right thing to do. People have been through hard times themselves, and, remembering that, they want to assist others.

So it is important we have a high level of protection for the charities, which are absolutely dependent, in many cases, and increasingly dependent, on charitable donations, given that, unfortunately, money from government, both central and local government, has tended to dry up in recent years. There are fewer grants available; the bar has been raised. It has become much more difficult for charities of all sorts to rely on funding from government. And that is a two-edged sword. It is disappointing to see that worthy charities are underfunded, but equally it does encourage them to go out and generate their own incomes, so there is a degree of merit in that.

We are very happy to continue supporting this bill, as we have since it was first presented by Amy Adams. We should acknowledge it was her private member’s bill that she brought to the House, though several years ago.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Member’s bill. “Private member’s” went out in 1996.

DAVID CLENDON: Excuse me. I am corrected by one of the members with one of the longer memories in this House.

It is a good piece of legislation. We have supported it. We had some minor reservations initially and they have been recognised. There were issues about the apparent simplicity of the rule-making, to say we will cut in at certain levels, certain thresholds. Clearly once we delved into the complexity of the sector it became apparent that a more subtle approach needed to be taken. The regulatory approach involving ministerial discretion, if you like, certainly seems to be the best available outcome to us. So, yes, acknowledging then that this is a good piece of legislation, we will support it. We will also continue to support other legislation that seeks to improve fair trading and consumer rights in New Zealand. We do have reasonably robust protection for consumers. All of our fair trade legislation is reasonably robust by international standards, but some of it is also dated, and some of it has not kept up with modern forms of exchange, of sale and purchase—be it in the voluntary sector or just in the straight commercial sector.

We are very happy to continue to support legislation that genuinely gives consumers a better break, that protects people in the commercial sector, and that most certainly protects those working in the voluntary and charitable sector. We are very happy to give our support to this bill. Thank you.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : Malo le soifua. It is a pleasure to take a short call on this the third reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I want to support and acknowledge the chief Government whip again for bringing this bill to the House, alongside Minister Amy Adams, who was the originator of the bill. I also note, as other speakers have said today, the constructive work of the Commerce Committee on it. We grappled with a number of issues in this bill, and I think we came to what is a good conclusion.

As we know, the Charities Commission data indicates that there are more than 25,000 registered charities in New Zealand. The sector is quite large. It receives in excess of $1 billion worth of donations. Many in our communities rely on these donations, and many spend countless hours standing on busy street corners raising money for what are worthy organisations. I include a number of MPs in that who raise money for Plunket, Daffodil Day, and many other charitable causes that are dear to our hearts. We do this willingly. We are happy to play a small part and contribute to the work that a number of charities do.

But, as has already been expressed in this House and across the country, there is concern that a disproportionate percentage of donated moneys is retained by third-party collectors to cover their costs, and that the members of the public making those donations are not quite aware of this. In fact, the other issue is that the concern has actually led to members of the public not donating, because of grave concern that their moneys are not going to the causes for which they are intended. Those concerns have increased. Media reports have shown that it is not uncommon for some collections to actually retain up to 90 percent of moneys donated by the public. That has led many to seek to bring this bill to the House. It is important that we have faith in the system of donations. It is part of our Kiwi culture. It is part of the way of life in New Zealand that we donate to charities and that we support charities with our free time. The bill is designed to increase the transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses.

As my colleague David Clendon has already said, the bill had to be altered in many ways during the select committee process. We came to the conclusion that the regulation-making power by Order in Council of the Governor-General was the appropriate way forward in determining how we would treat this area of the law. Regulations can be made prescribing different requirements, particularly around disclosure of information about fund-raisers, about charitable organisations, and the relationship between those parties. It also looks at regulation powers. It looks at the financial benefits of the fund-raiser or any person, other than a charity, who will or may receive moneys from those requests. It is quite a wide regulation-making power.

In itself, this bill I think has actually raised awareness of this issue, not just here in Parliament but certainly across the country. We had a number of submissions from charitable organisations that were fearful of the original provisions of the bill. They feared that they would be captured and there would be unintended consequences, particularly where charitable organisations had used professional marketers, who would gain trails for commissions from donations that would extend out into not just the near future but the long-term future. This bill raised the awareness of people out in our community, and it encourages members of the public to get more information when donating to the charities of their preference.

In summary, this is a sensible bill and it is a pragmatic piece of legislation that the many parties in this House came together to produce. In my view it will restore some level of public confidence in charitable appeals. People can be confident, once these regulations are put in place, that their donations will go at least to their desired causes. I want to again thank the two members who brought this bill to the House. I certainly, as a member of the Commerce Committee, commend this bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First also supports the amended Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, as it now is. The original bill clearly had some significant problems. It was, in particular, very complex, and it was difficult to work out how the various percentages would apply in various circumstances to organisations. I am a member of a charitable trust board in Christchurch that exists exclusively for the purpose of raising money for other charities. When I looked at the complexity of the original bill, I had to wonder where on earth we would fit in that particular regime. I think that was one of the main problems with the bill as it originally was. If it had been enacted as it was, I think that when some of the charitable organisations that exist in the community looked at it they would have had a lot of trouble working out where they fitted in and what their liabilities were. That, of course, means that it was bad law. It would have been bad law because it was not readily understandable, and people would not know what their liabilities were. It is very important that there be clarity and certainty around laws of this kind, especially when we are dealing with charities.

So it was that complexity, I think, that was the main problem with it, but it was also too inflexible. Any amendment would have had to come through the system of the Committee of the whole House, and that would have been time-consuming and difficult. There would have had to be some flexibility to deal with that whole array of different charities, with all their different needs and attributes that we find out there in the community.

I really do applaud the Commerce Committee for the current iteration of the bill, which provides for comprehensive regulation. I do think that is the way to go. I note that there are eight areas of regulation in the bill in new section 28A(1) in clause 4. Those include regulations for prescribing requirements for disclosure of information about the fund-raiser, about the charitable organisation itself, and about the relationship between those two parties, which can be very different in nature. Also included are the financial benefits the fund-raiser would receive, directly or indirectly, from the process, the amount of the donation included in the price of goods and also how the disclosure will take place, and how the financial benefit must be calculated and expressed. Finally included is the financial benefit that the fund-raiser would not be required to disclose. If there are good regulations on all of those eight subjects, then I think we will have a good and understandable regime for charities and their fund-raisers to comply with.

All of this is fine and will provide for a good outcome, but I do not really believe that it is enough in itself. I believe that what we really need in the future is also some actual limitation about what can be deducted from charitable donations for expenses and for profits. Perhaps that could be done by way of guidelines, and additional provision for other regulations along those lines could be made in the future. It is too late for that now, of course, but when the Fair Trading Act is revised, as it is intended to be shortly, then I would like to see some consideration given to that sort of concept. The reason for that is the same as some other speakers have said, and that is to give people confidence that when they make a donation, most of it will actually go to the charity rather than to profits or to expenses for those who collect donations on behalf of charities. When you think about the sophisticated ways that fund-raising happens these days—online donations, automatic donations, and all sorts of other methods—then it is very important that we have even more controls and regulations than we see in this particular bill. That will give people the confidence that I spoke of.

In making the regulations that are set out in this bill, great care will be needed to make sure that the needs of a great many different organisations are provided for. There is a whole array of different charities out there with different attributes and different needs. It will therefore be very important indeed for the provision in the new section 28A(2) in clause 4 for consultation to be comprehensively carried out, and it needs to be that outreaching sort of consultation rather than just waiting for people to come to the Minister of Consumer Affairs or the Minister’s representatives. That consultation will be absolutely vital if these regulations are actually going to work in practice.

Lastly, I would like to mention just this: there are bound to be some issues with some of the definitions in new section 28A(5) in clause 4, and I will mention a couple of them that I think we need to keep an eye on. The first is the term “fund-raiser”, which is defined as being a person in business. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I am on a charitable trust board that exclusively raises funds for other charities, so I am not quite sure whether that charity would be a person in business for the purposes of this regulation. We will have to take a good look at that later on.

Another term that I think we will have to be careful about is the term “makes requests”. I see that the term “requests” is defined in the bill, as well. I think the definition should be wider to also include unsolicited receipt of donations, by providing a facility for people to make donations, rather than the definition that is there at the moment. However, when, as I said before, the review of the Fair Trading Act does take place, we can look at whether these definitions have provided any challenges, and, if so, we can refine them, as we need to refine the regulations themselves when we take a good look at how this has proceeded.

I look forward not only to the passing of this bill but, later, to the full review of the Fair Trading Act and, in particular, the new provisions that we might put in it to refine and improve the provisions of this bill. But the bill as it is, I think, is right in its direction in simply providing for a regime of regulations to be developed as a result of comprehensive consultation, and that is the key. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : Sat sri akaal, Mr Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. During the first and second readings of this bill I shared my concerns, which I am sure are the concerns put forward by many ordinary New Zealanders each time they make a donation. The concern is about how much of the money we donate as generously as New Zealanders do to the charity actually gets utilised for the purpose that we donate it.

Other speakers in the House, including me, have shared statistics that advise of 23,000 registered charities in New Zealand, with billions of dollars flowing in in the form of donations for charitable purposes. These concerns, which most New Zealanders share, are not based on anything; these are based on some good investigative journalism. The media has, on a number of occasions, reported that charitable organisations end up paying a significant portion of their donation to the organisations or individuals engaged by these charities to generate donations.

Not just the media, but the Commerce Commission in its research too, found that individuals sought greater clarity and transparency in the amount of money that was collected by those on behalf of the charities. We all know that services that we engage must be paid for. However, one must acknowledge that when it comes to collecting donations, good-hearted people who donate have every right to know where and how much of their money is going.

The Fair Trading Act seeks to bring transparency to the system. This critical legislation seeks to address the process of raising funds using a third party on behalf of the charitable organisations. The legislation covers the activities of the third party, such as how much money was collected, and how much money then was handed over to the charity so that it can be spent on a worthy cause. Basically, this bill seeks complete disclosure of activities by the third parties that are engaged in charities.

The legislation is not about regulating the charities or charitable organisations. These are covered under the Charities Act. It is reasonably easy for anyone to undertake an audit or examination of the financial statements of the charity, if fund-raising and the subsequent spending was taken by the charity. The legislation’s focus is clarity in the terms of transparency and disclosure from the third party undertaking donations collection on behalf of the charities.

Before I conclude, I would like to congratulate my colleague Michael Woodhouse on taking over this bill from the Hon Amy Adams. I commend this bill to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Malo le soifua i lau afioga le fofoga fetalai. Let me begin by saying some preliminary comments about the context that leads up to this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. There has been quite a lot of debate this week about the asset sales, public servants losing jobs and having to do more and more for less and less, and the proposed $1 billion cut from the Public Service, which is going to put a lot of pressure on people—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know where I am going with this. This has got nothing to do with this bill, this context that he is going down. He is obviously making some political statements about events unrelated to this bill. I suggest the member comes back to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Although the member is technically correct, the member often is allowed a little bit of leeway in making counter-objections to previous speakers. But I am sure that the member is coming closer to the bill.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was bringing in the context of what is happening in the community. People are unemployed, and people are being squeezed left, right, and centre. So what I am saying is that, given that context, the context to this bill is that people are suffering under this Government’s leadership. [Interruption] With job losses—absolutely. All that this Government has been able to come up with is the sale of State assets. When I look at this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, I have to say that I agree with Amy Adams and I agree with Michael Woodhouse bringing this bill forward. When you consider the wider community who are suffering as a result of this Government, I am hopeful that this bill will give some light and support to the wider community. [Interruption]

Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on, be charitable, you guys.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I am trying to be charitable. It has been my experience that in communities such as Māngere, communities such as in Manukau, and in South Auckland those who are suffering the most under this Government often contribute the most to charities. It could be $5, it could be $10, or it could be $20, but those people in Māngere, South Auckland, and Manukau consistently contribute to charities, year in and year out. Admittedly we could have a family out in Remuera, in the leafy suburbs, who contribute $1,000 in a year, probably. But what is $1,000 if you have $50 million in the bank account? For people who are struggling to make ends meet, a $5, $10, or $20 contribution is a significant amount. Most people who make that kind of contribution expect that that $5 goes directly to those charities, to those people who are seeking the donation. That has been our expectation. All I am saying—and I know the members opposite do not like that—is that I acknowledge Amy Adams for bringing in this legislation. It also makes you wonder why this bill is not a Government bill, because it just goes against the grain of doing something that benefits the community. I am saying that I am particularly pleased that this particular bill does now enable the full disclosure of how people’s donations are spent. It is of concern when you see that 25 percent of the money donated to charities is kept by those who are raising the funds.

Dr Rajen Prasad: More.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Or more—more in those cases. I am hopeful that this bill does provide some confidence to communities such as ours, who regularly donate a huge percentage of their income. You have to look at the fact that they are earning less and less since this Government has come into power, so $5, $10, or $20 is a significant amount.

I want to say that I also share the concerns raised by the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke, and in particular with the new clause 28A. I am glad that it seems that this bill, compared with when it was first put in, has been completely rewritten by the Commerce Committee. I note that my colleague Lianne Dalziel was the chair of that committee, a wonderful chair, and no doubt it was probably because of her leadership that we have had this bill completely rewritten.

I am also concerned that the committee received submissions from large charities that, as I read the report, seemed to oppose this particular bill—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Did you read the report?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —unlike members on the other side, who just follow blindly Mr Key and do not read that when they sell those State assets; they are actually selling Aotearoa and the rest of the future for our young people. So it concerns me that large charities, reputable charities, submitted against the bill. For me, I think it is important that this bill passes, to try to give confidence to those people who are contributing to charities.

I am also wondering about the regulation-making powers in this bill. I am pleased to see that regulations can be made by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Consumer Affairs, but I am wondering why that particular Minister is still sitting on his hands and has not done anything about the loan sharks that National has continued to say that it would do something about.

So although I am appreciative of the bill, I do still say that it should have been a Government bill. But I know how difficult it would have been for this Government to bring a bill that would support communities, because the track record of this Government so far has been to kick the community in the guts, and not give a damn. The Government has consistently lived a pattern of making promises that it could not deliver, and had no intention of delivering. Take, for example, the 170,000 jobs that it promised—none of that promise was kept at all.

I recommend to this House the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, and commend Amy Adams for having the courage to proceed with this bill despite any opposition that the Government may have had. Thank you very much.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) : It is with great pride that I stand to support the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I think that the Hon Amy Adams and our senior whip, Michael Woodhouse, were actually taking a real lead in something that is a problem not just here in New Zealand. This is a global problem, where people are losing faith in charities because up to 80 percent of their money is getting tied up in administration fees. But I have to say that this bill is making sure that over $1 billion of revenue is actually getting to the people who need it most.

I would just like to address the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, and say that today all I have heard from the Labour Party, the Opposition, is an attack on the Government because we have a plan—because we have a plan! Yes, we do have a plan, and a bill like this is actually part of that plan, in making sure that $1 billion of revenue finds its way to the people who need it. I would ask the Opposition to maybe take a leaf out of our book, and come up with a plan, even if it is a two-point plan. Give us a two-point plan. I mean, that would not be too much to ask. That would be interesting to see.

Kiwis are some of the most generous people in the world when it comes to donating to our thousands of worthy charities around New Zealand. I am sure that when they make their donations there is an expectation that most of the money will be used to support the delivery of services to the people who need that support most. Unfortunately, that is not always the case when third-party businesses are being used on behalf of a registered charity. There is a real risk that a disproportionate amount of the money collected is retained by the collectors to cover costs. I am sure that there are many members of the public who are not aware of this fact. As I have said, Kiwis are the most generous people in the world when it comes to supporting charities. I would just like to use some figures to demonstrate how important this piece of legislation is.

We currently have over 25,000 registered charities in New Zealand. These charities are supporting a wide diversity of groups within our communities—animal welfare, religious groups, children, the elderly, and families. Kiwis have given over 444,000 hours of their time to charities over the past year, and our nationwide charities received income of more than $1 billion. So it is easy to see, looking at some of these numbers, just how much money, time, and effort have been donated each year to charities, and why it is important to give donors the piece of mind that the money they donate is finding its way to the people who need it most. This piece of legislation goes a long way to restoring confidence in charitable appeals that are so important and a real part of the fabric of this country.

The Commerce Committee received and considered 25 submissions. The committee heard seven of these submissions, and I commend the committee for its work, because it is apparent, listening to Mr David Clendon, that it has gone a long way to actually making sure that there is support in the House for this bill, which I think is very important. The bill will provide for a regulation-making power, which is very important. This gives more flexibility to make the changes that work. I was going to take only a short call on this bill, but it has been a pleasure to be able to stand and support it. Thank you very much.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : Ni sa bula vinaka. Thank you for another call. I think it is a split call with the Greens.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a split call. The member will be notified at 1 minute to go.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Thank you very much. I just want to respond to Mr Mark Mitchell, because he posed a direct challenge to this side of the House. We will not be following the best examples of his party in terms of coming up with targets of a type, because if we did, Mr Mitchell, we would be planning for 2017. That is called never-never time. Our party is much more in the present, which is what we are doing. This is a good bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, and it addresses an important problem that has occurred in our society.

I think the problem that has occurred is sad, and it is a commentary on our society as well. Charities do extremely valuable work. They go where many do not go. They take on tasks that many do not take up. And they do all of that by raising small amounts of money, often, and sometimes large amounts of money, to support their great work. These are often areas in which others do not go, but charities will raise this money. Of course, we have seen more and more larger institutions, like our universities, also doing collections of a type by raising funds as well for their own research programmes, etc. So they will also take advantage of this.

It is a shame that many of the supporters who put in long hours to collect this money for these charities are taken for a ride by unscrupulous people who think that it is OK to take a substantial proportion of the moneys raised for their own ends, and to run it almost like a business. Nobody objects to taking enough to meet your expenses, but when you are taking such large amounts as has been revealed to this House, I think this bill becomes important. I know that Mr Woodhouse objected to me using the word “rort” in the Committee stage of this bill, but, in fact, that was the word that the Hon Amy Adams used when she brought this bill to the House. There was a sense of frustration in her voice that the rorts had to stop, and that was when this bill came into the House. So we should reflect on the fact that there are unscrupulous practitioners in our midst, and they take advantage in respect of funds raised for the most vulnerable. It should be guaranteed that that ought not to happen. I think this bill goes a long way towards doing that.

It is interesting where things start off and where they end. It was a bill on which we debated, in the first reading, the various clauses in the bill. Where that ended up in the Commerce Committee was somewhere quite different. This House was expressing concern in relation to as much as 80 percent of the money being taken by collectors. So the select committee, I think, did a great job in finding a way to meet the goals that the Hon Amy Adams had. I think that the select committee took a generous approach to this particular bill. [Interruption] I do not know what Mr McClay is chipping on about, because I am commenting favourably on the select committee process.

Todd McClay: I was congratulating you on your speech.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Oh, thank you. I appreciate the congratulations, Mr McClay. It was very different from the select committee you led on the asset sales programme. This select committee was very, very generous, and through that process the bill came back to the House in a different form. The challenge still is—and Su’a William Sio raised this as well—that we think time ought not to be wasted in developing the regulations that stand alongside this bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: This is nonsense.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Here is a member who has only just walked into the House, and the first word he has to say is “nonsense”. He has not followed anything. Mr Bridges, as a Minister you should be much more responsible than that. I do not know what he has had today, but perhaps he could be a bit more generous. But I do say that I hope those regulations will be developed with some urgency. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : The Greens will be supporting this legislation, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, because we believe that there does need to be a lot more clarity and transparency around donations, and how much of those donations are spent on third-party fund-raisers.

In 2011 just over 1 million people in our country dug into their pockets and donated over $1.5 billion to charities, according to the Business and Economic Research report commissioned by Philanthropy New Zealand. We support this bill because that is a lot of money, and we need to make sure New Zealanders can trust the system—so that they can be sure that the money they donate in good faith is used to support the charity, not siphoned off to businesses. I am heartened by the generosity of New Zealanders. There are so many organisations that rely on the charity dollar. They include—and are not limited to—community social service providers, human rights groups, sports teams, education groups, environmental organisations, parenting organisations, community organisations across the spectrum, and the list goes on. There are over 20,000 registered charities in New Zealand—somewhere between 23,000 and 28,000 of them.

I love it that we live in a country where people care enough to put their hands in their pockets, or go online, or text to ensure that they will help out our communities. This bill is about protecting that. I guess that is why I have found the self-serving campaign that has been waged by the pokie industry to oppose the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill really distasteful. Submissions have just closed on it. The campaign is being led by Pub Charity chief executive officer Martin Cheer. Pokie trusts—although “not to be trusted” is probably a better description—currently have the job of distributing the proceeds from pub pokie gambling back to communities. Many community organisations rely on those funds just to keep themselves afloat.

In my speech in the first reading debate of this bill I said that many community groups were forced into the arms of the devil to survive. This is happening more and more as Government funding dries up; as our public services are being run down and community organisations find their contracts with the Government under pressure. There have also been over 5,000 jobs lost in the public sector, so those community organisations are filling the gap.

Although some charities and community organisations can rely on the goodwill of donors, others have to stay afloat by taking pokie money. The Government is fuelling addiction to pokie money, and that fuels addiction for problem gamblers, because problem gamblers contribute the vast amount of money that goes back to community organisations. It really distresses me that although we are keen to address the rorts and the dodgy dealings of third-party fund-raisers with this bill, the attempts to address the rorts and dodgy dealings of the pokie trusts, with the passing of the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name, have met with such fierce opposition from the gambling industry.

Martin Cheer of Pub Charity is doing exactly the same thing as some of those third-party fund-raisers. In the last financial year his charity organisation—I use the word “charity” lightly—kept $43 million of the $69 million that was lost by gamblers on their Pub Charity machines. So it is no wonder that they are opposing the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, which not only wants to reduce problem gambling but it also seeks—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are not talking about problem gambling.

DENISE ROCHE: Coming back to the bill, this bill builds on the good work of the Charities Commission and the third sector to get their house in order. You are able to check—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No.

Hon Members: No, no, no.

DENISE ROCHE: Sorry, Mr Speaker. One is able to check what funding is coming into a charity through the Charities Commission’s website database, and one can see how much is being spent on third-party fund-raisers.

We believe that this bill goes some way towards protecting donations, and donors, and charities in New Zealand. It is well-intentioned. There are some big gaps in it—we do know this. We know that that has been addressed through the Commerce Committee. Our only caution is that we are hopeful that the appropriate regulatory mechanisms will be developed in partnership with key players, and with those who are most affected. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National) : It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. Before I begin I would like to acknowledge the good work of the Hon Amy Adams, Michael Woodhouse, and members of the Commerce Committee for their recommendations.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure transparency and disclosure to the public so that they can make fair and informed decisions when donating money to registered charities. Currently, agencies collecting for charities may use names similar to the charity they are collecting for, and hence the public believe that they are actually donating money to the end charity. The problem has been that many third parties collecting for charities fail to fully disclose to the potential givers that a percentage of their donation will be taken to cover costs—sometimes very exorbitant costs.

This bill aims to control third-party businesses that collect on behalf of charities, and not the charities themselves or their volunteers. As there are currently no rules on what has to be disclosed, the aim of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is to remedy that anomaly. There have been media reports in the past that have highlighted that sometimes just 2.5 percent of money given has ended up in the hands of the charity. This is scandalous and is harmful to consumer confidence.

This bill aims to protect charities and consumers. It will help restore faith in charities, which rely heavily on the kind generosity of New Zealanders, and ensure that their good work continues and that consumer rights are fully protected. The Charities Commission reports that $1 billion was given to the 25,000 registered New Zealand charities in 2012. It is this type of legislation that ensures that loopholes are closed, so that the utmost transparency and accountability are maintained when it comes to registered charities. The last thing we want, and which would be detrimental to the good work of charities, is putting off potential donors because they feel that their hard-earned cash will not get to those it was intended for. Although the change will not have much impact on charities themselves, it will, however, result in a more streamlined service but still offer charities the information and support they need.

The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is a good piece of legislation that will increase transparency and public accountability and restore public faith, to ensure that charities continue their good work as they make a valuable contribution to society. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

• Bill read a third time.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) on behalf of Dr Kennedy Graham: I move, That the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. Before I speak to the substance of this bill, I would like to just quickly pay homage to the hard work put in by my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham on this bill. It is a fine piece of draft legislation, and deserves careful consideration. Unfortunately, his global affairs portfolio responsibilities meant that he could not be here this week to speak on this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just a point for the future. You cannot refer to the absence of a member. In the context of this, we understand, but just think about it in the future. You cannot talk about the absence of a member.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the bill was introduced in November 2010 one would have hoped it could reach this stage before now, but we are glad that it is finally here, and we acknowledge and appreciate that the Government has agreed to work with us on this bill.

We in the Green Party and, I believe, pretty much the whole of the country were saddened by the set of circumstances that led, ultimately, to the resignation of one of our most talented judges not very long ago. It is always a personal tragedy when unexpected events put to an abrupt end the work of talented individuals who have contributed much to the future of New Zealand. The circumstances surrounding that episode do not warrant detailed investigation here in this debate. Suffice it to say that it exposes a number of characteristics of the judiciary of a small country such as New Zealand—and perhaps even of countries that are not so small—and of the limited and, to some extent, intimate circle of acquaintances that goes to make up the higher echelons of the judiciary.

In such circumstances there exists an even greater than usual responsibility on the part of all individuals involved to ensure that the integrity of the system is not in any way compromised, through a strict respect for the principles of openness and transparency. It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach. Public confidence in the standard of behaviour and conduct observed by leading servants of the people is a cornerstone of social harmony and political stability. A threshold of confidence should, ideally, be enshrined in constitutional and legislative form. Little scope should be available for individual discretion or subjective perception.

The principles of transparency in this respect pertain in particular to issues of financial interest. Nothing undermines public confidence in a nation’s institutions and procedures more than a suspicion that a public servant may have suffered a conflict of interest arising from a financial engagement in a particular dealing in which one was professionally involved.

In New Zealand members of the executive have been required under statute since 1990 to provide statements of pecuniary interests pertaining to their personal financial affairs. Such statements are submitted to the Speaker, and these are made available for public consumption. In 2006 this practice was extended to all members of Parliament. Since then MPs have been required to submit annual statements of pecuniary interests to a registrar, who makes the information publicly available.

The legislature’s version of pecuniary interest statements was modelled along the lines of that of the executive. In both cases a careful balance has been struck between transparent public knowledge of an individual’s financial affairs and the preservation of personal privacy. The correct balance in this respect appears to have been achieved over the years. The public interest in such annual statements is significant without appearing inappropriate, and few complaints have been voiced by those on whom the obligations are placed. There seems to be general acceptance that such exercises are in the public interest and are neither unduly onerous nor revealing.

No such practice, however, has been observed in the case of the judiciary. Recent developments within New Zealand’s judicial conduct processes suggest that application of the same practice observed by the other two branches of government might assist in the protection of the judiciary in the future. Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgments about his or her personal affairs as each case arises.

Having declared one’s pecuniary interests once in a generic manner, independent of any particular trial, a judge may freely proceed in the knowledge that if one is appointed to adjudicate, public confidence for participation has already been met. Yet care is to be exercised to ensure that the final decision as to whether to accept a case is left to the individual judge.

There should be no intention of external interference in the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary. This is the reasoning behind the draft legislation before us. It takes as its purpose the promotion of due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests, in order to provide greater transparency within the judicial system and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.

Let me review the main provisions of the bill. Clause 4 provides that “Nothing in this Act is to be interpreted as compromising the constitutional principle of judicial independence guaranteed by the Constitution Act 1986 and respected by constitutional convention.” Clause 6 describes the two key components of the bill, which are to require returns of pecuniary interests from judges and to establish a register of such returns.

Clauses 5, 7, and 8 impose a duty on judges to make an initial return of pecuniary interests following appointment as a judge. Clause 9 lists the contents of returns of pecuniary interests. Clause 14 provides that disclosure of the actual value, amount, or extent is not required in relation to any matter that is required to be disclosed. Clause 19 provides that the registrar must publish the information contained in both initial and annual returns of pecuniary interests.

Clause 20 provides that the registrar must publish the name of any judge who fails to submit any return. Clause 21 provides that it is the responsibility of each judge to ensure that his or her obligations under the Act are fulfilled, and places limits on the responsibilities of the registrar. Clause 22 provides that a complaint that a judge has failed to make a return of pecuniary interests is a matter that has bearing on the judicial functions or judicial duties of the purpose of section 16(1)(b) of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004.

This bill is not designed to imply any right of the legislature to intervene in the affairs of the judiciary. As I said before, nothing in the draft will be interpreted as compromising the constitutional principle of judicial independence guaranteed in our constitution. The intention of this bill is simply to facilitate the promotion of due administration of justice by requiring a similar financial return by judges to what is already required by both the legislature and executive of this country. We submit that our constitutional integrity as a nation will be enhanced with the passage and adoption of this bill. Thank you.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : This is a bill to establish a register of pecuniary interests for judges. The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill was introduced to the House on 11 November 2010. Following its introduction the Law Commission took urgent steps to prepare an issues paper on the subject, which was made publicly available in March 2011. The National Party will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. It deals with a serious subject—namely, confidence in the courts that interpret this Parliament’s laws. However, we do have reservations about whether a register of judges’ pecuniary interests is an appropriate mechanism to safeguard that confidence, and, in particular, whether this bill would achieve its stated aims.

My colleagues will elaborate on these concerns, but first I would like to give some background to this matter. The issues paper by the Law Commission helpfully sets out the background to this issue. It describes the position of other jurisdictions. For reference, it outlines the features of judicial financial registers that have been established in the US, India, and South Africa. The Law Commission notes that currently New Zealand judges are subject to ethical codes developed within the judiciary and through the evolution of the common law. This ethical code has recently been confirmed in the Supreme Court judgment in the Saxmere case. The commission goes on to say in its paper that any judge in breach of this ethical code can be subject to a formal complaint under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is the Law Commission’s view that the substantive law surrounding judicial recusals is well settled and that no legislative intervention is necessary. However, it does suggest that the process by which recusal applications are processed could be usefully refined. Since the issues paper on the subject was published, the Law Commission has also begun work on a wider review of the court structure. It is its opinion that if a register like the one being considered now should be found to be necessary, the proper manner for its implementation would be as a considered component of a new Courts Act. The Law Commission’s final report will be delivered very shortly.

This bill, as I have said, raises what are serious matters in a serious fashion that avoids glibness or politicisation. I acknowledge that the bill’s sponsor is Dr Kennedy Graham, who is a thoughtful and respected member of Parliament. He has waited a long time for his bill to be brought before the House, and it is appropriate that the issues raised in it be explored at the select committee. The National Party will support this bill to the select committee for its consideration. However, National also accepts the Law Commission’s opinion that this is an issue that needs to be considered as part of a wider courts review. We would not support the progress of this bill any further unless it was as part of the Law Commission’s recommendation for a wider courts review.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I want to begin my contribution by congratulating Kennedy Graham on bringing forward this measure, the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, and by indicating that the New Zealand Labour Party will support sending the bill to a select committee for further consideration. I think this is probably the first occasion on which a member’s bill has triggered a Law Commission report, and that is probably another indication that this is a bill that has significance attached to it.

The reason that my colleagues and I have decided to support the bill’s referral to a select committee is that we do believe very strongly in the importance of the principle of the open administration of justice. This is especially the case since New Zealand took responsibility for our own final appeals, repatriating that jurisdiction from the Privy Council and reposing it in the Supreme Court, the court that sits opposite Bowen House today. But having said that we will support the bill’s referral to a select committee, it is important to recognise that the bill raises some very serious constitutional and other legal issues. Those issues are going to need to be very carefully canvassed in the select committee, and the commitment from the Labour Party to support the bill is to ensure that the discussion can occur in the appropriate forum.

The Law Commission report set out some of those concerns, and I might just mention one or two of them now. First of all, there are real problems in conducting a comparative analysis, as we would normally do, with the jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves with. There is no comparable register in the United Kingdom, in Australia, or in Canada, and that applies in respect of the federal and state or provincial jurisdictions where that is a relevant factor in those jurisdictions. So there is really nowhere that we can look to in terms of those jurisdictions that we normally like to consider when we think about whether or not a particular intervention would work in New Zealand.

I think the previous speaker mentioned the United States. There has been an attempt to codify judicial obligations as to disclosure of potential conflicts at the federal level there, but that has raised some real problems, which we will have to confront when the select committee discussion that I mentioned earlier occurs. Chiefly, who polices? “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, I think, is the maxim. The judges are going to have to, themselves, take responsibility in the end for the accuracy of any register that might come into being, and there have been real problems around the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of disclosures under the American system. So that is a warning, I think, as to the potential fate of a register in a jurisdiction such as ours.

There are other issues that will need to be considered, and they are referred to in the Law Commission report. What should the scope of a register of judicial interests be? Should it apply to full-time judges only or to all the quasi-judicial tribunals that sit part-time across the country? What sort of detail should be required in the register? Should it be as for our Standing Orders or should it be a more scant provision? How often should the register be updated? Should it be on the acquisition of any new assets, or should an annual or even a less frequent updating be required? Should it apply to spouses, children, and related parties, or simply to the judicial officer him or herself?

Finally, and most important, should we as a Parliament be seeking to impose upon the judiciary these sorts of requirements? My own view is that it would be much better if the courts were to perform this exercise themselves, voluntarily. It would be my hope that we could come to a position where this debate encouraged that to occur. To me, that would be the ideal position. Meanwhile, we look forward to the select committee debate.

• Debate interrupted.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I would like to take a relatively short call on this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, not that it is a subject that does not excite interest but it is just that we have already heard from speakers who are well versed in the justice system, and I think they have covered an awful lot of good points. I enjoyed listening to Charles Chauvel speaking about his earlier occupation, and it is one that does stir a lot of interest.

The bill, which has been introduced by Dr Kennedy Graham, seeks to deal with what is assuredly a most important issue: ensuring we have confidence in the judges who hear public cases, and that they are free from any conflict of interest that could lead, consciously or unconsciously, to incorrect decisions being made. The Law Commission acknowledged the serious nature of the issue raised by Dr Graham’s bill, and I think it is a credit to him that it attracted the attention of the Law Commission. That being said, it still leaves a number of questions. Is there a legitimate issue, whether a practice or perception, that needs to be addressed; if so, is this bill the right way to do that? Do we have a problem in New Zealand that requires a pecuniary interests register for judges, with the issues that such a register requires? The Law Commission gives this matter careful treatment in its issues paper.

It is important to note there have in fact been very few cases where pecuniary interests have been the basis for a challenge to a judge sitting on a case in New Zealand. The commission’s paper outlines the positions of other common law countries. New Zealand is substantially the same as England and Wales, and Australia and Canada have no plans to introduce registers for judges’ pecuniary interests. The Law Commission concludes that the law relating to when judges must recuse themselves from trials is both well settled and consistent with comparable jurisdictions.

This bill would not clarify the issues surrounding the process by which a judge is removed from presiding on a case. The bill is directed towards a substantive identification of conflicts, but not the process surrounding the conflicts in general. The commission’s view, and my view as well, is that there is no need for a legislative intervention. Instead, any deficiencies in the way judges apply the process for recusal decisions are, I think, better made by the judiciary itself, through the rules of the court or similar procedural measures. I support, however, the proposal to forward the bill to a select committee. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. First, I would like to acknowledge the respectful, thoughtful, intellectual debate we have heard here today. Just for the members’ interest, this is what you get when you get a Green bill in this House—a respectful debate.

Chris Auchinvole: You’ve just spoilt it, Gareth—you’ve just spoilt it!

GARETH HUGHES: Ha, ha! We would like to thank the other parties in this House for their comments. I would like to acknowledge Dr Kennedy Graham, who is possibly one of our most thoughtful, intellectual, and respectful MPs. It is good that the other parties are supporting this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. It is good that it is going to get another hearing at the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is good we will get to hear from the judges and the public, because it is an important issue. Obviously, conflict of interest is a reality in our modern world. Kiwis have got to have confidence in our judiciary. We need to have as a goal, I think, the most open Government and judiciary that is possible within practical means. We pride ourselves on being one of the least corrupt nations on earth, and, as the old cliche goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Public transparency and openness is the best way to have confidence in a vital sector in our country.

As we heard from the member Julie Anne Genter, the executive in New Zealand had a register of pecuniary interests back in 1990, MPs followed in 2006, and now 2012 is the year when we need to have the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges. I think we could also widen the debate to look at local government, which has a register but it is still not made public. What we want to have is across the judiciary and democratically elected positions in New Zealand those principles of openness and transparency enshrined.

We acknowledge that this law will not be onerous for judges. It is going to be easy, fast, and transparent. As Julie Anne Genter outlined, the bill is relatively simple. It outlines how the judges can make the register of pecuniary interests, and explains how to do their returns, how interests must be listed, the fact that the value is not disclosed, and that the register must be made public, which is crucial, given the example we have of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Local Government Members. Judges have to do it. The important clause, which is the part that Charles Chauvel picked up on, is whether we do want this legislation to be enforcing a provision on the judiciary. We hear what the member is saying about the judiciary doing it themselves, but we have made that crystal clear with clause 4, which is trying to protect that very important constitutional principle.

We note National’s reservations. Will it achieve its stated aims? We think it will. We think it works. The register works for us in Parliament. But this is why it is good that the bill will be going to a select committee so that we can have that in-depth discussion. The bill can be amended and made better. As to Labour’s question about who is going to be policing it, I think the member Charles Chauvel answered it himself. It is the judges. Ultimately we have to limit the legislature’s influence or engagement with the judiciary in that sense. So it is up to the judges, but again we will see that detail come out at the select committee.

In summary, we would like to thank the other parties for their support. We would like to invite the public and interested parties to make a submission to the select committee. We have had a great track record with members’ bills over the years, from forming the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, through to the groundbreaking waste legislation, section 59, mothers with babies, and flexible working hours, and we look forward to having another Green member’s bill joining that list. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. Some events in recent years have shown that legislation to ensure transparency in respect of judges’ interests and to provide a means to avoid conflicts of interest for judges is now appropriate.

There has been something of a hands-off attitude for judges as public servants, when standards relating to conflicts of interest and transparency measures in respect of conflicts of interest have been long accepted by members of the executive since 1990, members of Parliament since 2006, and also on a voluntary basis by local government members, who often volunteer to do this. So there is no reason I can see why these standards and such measures should not also be applied to the judiciary. I do not mean at all that judges are generally remiss in avoiding conflicts of interest. The opposite is in fact the case. Almost always they behave well in this respect. They stand down when there is any hint of a conflict of interest, but some recent events have shown that there can be exceptions, rare though they may be. This bill does not remove the responsibility of judges to assess for themselves if they have a conflict of interest. It actually adds to transparency, however, by the use of a register and it enhances the principle of avoidance of conflicts of interest, and provides judges with an opportunity to be transparent, in line with now accepted practice. So it should be welcomed by them.

One concern I would have, though, is in clause 5, which provides the definition of a judge. I believe it should include disputes tribunal referees, since they make decisions in a wide area, especially in the area of consumer law, and they decide significant-sized claims now. They are no longer anything like the old small claims tribunals. So they should be included as well.

It is important, however, in principle that all people with significant decision-making powers who hold public office, whether elected or appointed, need to give up a degree of privacy in return for the means to ensure public confidence in respect of avoidance of conflicts of interest. It is to achieve the objective of transparency that it is necessary for that to be legally required for judges as well as for others, such as those I have mentioned. So there does need to be, I think, a properly structured register, as provided for in this bill. So I would disagree with Simon Bridges in what he said. I believe we need to show an effective means of avoiding conflicts of interest for judges, and most particularly for the reason of public perception. I do not see how that could be achieved without legislation of this kind for a register, despite the report of the Law Commission in its paper.

When looking at the bill in detail, it seems to me to be well drafted. Clause 9 sets out a comprehensive list of interests, and I note also clause 10 in respect of the interests of judges in relation to personal relationships being exempted. That seems to me to be a good balance. Finally, as to enforcement, I note the provisions of clause 22 and the use of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner as a means of enforcing the provisions of the bill, and that seems to me—

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Like my colleagues I will be voting that this bill, the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, be referred to the select committee so that it can be examined and considered more fully. However, I share their concerns at what the possible consequences of bringing in a register of judges’ pecuniary interests could be. For that reason, this House and the Justice and Electoral Committee must exercise great care in considering this bill. The Law Commission’s issues paper details some of the fears about what such a scheme may lead to. The Law Commission concedes that the judiciary cannot live in a fortress above concerns about transparency. But it is none the less true that great care must be taken to protect the judiciary’s independence from other branches of Government, and also to respect the same kinds of principles of good decision-making we would expect from the judiciary itself.

The member’s bill proposes that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will maintain and monitor compliance with the register. However, as the commission states, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner also exercises a quasi-judicial function in relation to the judiciary. Any complaints about conduct will be referred to his or her office. The commission says that conflating this role with the role of policing the register is unusual and in general undesirable.

Another concern is the effect a register would have on judges’ privacy and, related closely to that, their security. One fear is that publishing the personal financial details of judges could lead to what an American court described as possible pressure or importuning by family members, public and political interest groups, and others. The publication of detailed holdings—in particular, items such as a judge’s residential address—could also lead to an increased risk of either physical or economic harm at the hands of criminals or disgruntled litigants. These are not imaginary concerns. The Law Commission notes that in New Zealand judges have been subject to threats to their safety. Provision, therefore, must be made as to how sensitive information could be redacted, although the commission also notes that experience in the United States has shown this is more easily said than done.

Another issue is exposing judges to vexatious litigants. Already we see a flood of complaints to the statutory Judicial Conduct Commissioner each year, and the number of outstanding complaints is steadily rising. Most of these complaints are dismissed. Some are clearly vexatious. Making available a detailed register of judges’ interests may perversely empower vexatious litigants to pursue personal vendettas through new litigation raised about issues at bizarre tangents to the original case. This would serve only to further clog up the court system, and it does nothing to serve justice.

These factors impact on not only those we rely on to coolly interpret and apply the law without fear or favour. Anything that affects sitting judges also has an effect on the ability to attract and retain existing judges of high calibre. Many top advocates and lawyers already accept substantial cuts in income in order to sit as judges. If they are confronted with requirements to give up their privacy and possibly expose themselves to more serious problems, it will be that much harder to entice first-class candidates on to the bench. With these reservations in mind, we will be supporting the bill going to the select committee, where these important and timely issues can be more fully examined. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) : Labour intends to support the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a serious bill. Its purpose is a very proper purpose, and that is, to quote the bill: “… by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.”

I think we are generally very well served by the judiciary, and there have been very few accusations, allegations, or even suspicions of corruption, in so far as it affects the judiciary. But as my colleague Charles Chauvel pointed out earlier, conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest can occur and in the Saxmere case that led, rightly or wrongly, to the resignation of Justice Wilson. I think one concern that you would need to have is that whatever is done in this legislation preserves judicial independence. I am a huge believer in judicial independence, not in so far as my former role as Minister of Justice but my former role as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. You could judge the quality of the rule of law in a country by the independence of the judiciary, and nothing ought to be done that would substantially, or in any way, undermine the principle of judicial independence. But I do not think that that is automatically the consequence of legislation of this nature. I await with interest the final report of the Law Commission, and I think it is going to be a real benefit to the Justice and Electoral Committee to have that final report alongside the legislation when it looks at it.

It is not really a hugely radical move. I remember back in 1990 it was a Labour Government that first applied the principle of having a register of pecuniary interests to the executive. There are all sorts of things said about that and how undesirable it might be, but actually that has turned out to be, I think, a strong move in the right direction, helping New Zealand preserve the very proud record that we have, through Transparency International, as being regarded as first equal in the countries that have the least corrupt systems in the world. In fact, the pecuniary register for the executive has worked so well that, again under a Labour Government, since 2006 that has applied to all members of Parliament, and I do not think there are any members of Parliament here who think that we have been hard-done-by because we have to register our pecuniary interests. I think it is a protection for members of Parliament, and it is a protection and a guarantee for the integrity of the system, and I could see it having a similar impact in so far as it relates to the judiciary. It is important to note that although judges would have to set out areas where they have pecuniary interests, it does not extend to the actual value or the amount, so that privacy interests are protected in that way.

When the Law Commission looked at this issue, its preliminary view was that the existing law relating to recusal for financial interests by a judge was adequate rather than any new law being needed. However, the commission also noted: “there is a value in transparency because it increases public confidence in the integrity of public officials, deters conflicts of interest from arising, ensures standards of conduct and integrity remain high, and enhances accountability.” I think that that, in a sentence, sets out the justification and the arguments for a register of pecuniary interests. I am aware also that comparable regimes such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada do not have it, but the United States does have it, and it has had it since 1978.

I will finish with this quote from a very conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was actually appointed under the Nixon administration. He said this of the American system in 2000: “There are legitimate purposes served by the Act.” Among them is “exposing the judges’ financial holdings to public scrutiny which assists judges in avoiding conflicts of interest.” Then he goes on a little later to say that few would argue that there is no need to publicise a list of judges’ holdings for conflicts purposes. To end on another justice of the Supreme Court—

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

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill clearly raises important issues. However, it seems from the Law Commission’s report published in February and the submissions that the commission has received on that document to date that there is some doubt about whether this is an effective response to these natural and legitimate concerns, or, indeed, as others who have spoken tonight have indicated, an appropriate one.

I understand that the legal community is not broadly in favour of a register. One matter identified by members of the legal profession is that the bill does not address what they see as the more relevant issue of the actual process for applying the very well-settled laws relating to recusal in practice. This bill would not overcome the issue identified by both the profession and the bench, which is the absence of guidance on how to apply the recusal rules consistently. Those rules determine whether a judge should remove him or herself from a case. The bill instead is directed toward identifying the possible conflicts in advance by listing them publicly.

It is worth noting that there are a number of very difficult technical issues around the construction of such a register if it is to achieve the goal of pre-emptively identifying possible conflicts. This is especially the case where the nature of the financial relationship between parties is not entirely straightforward or apparent on the face of ownership records. That was the situation in the Saxmere case, which most recently brought this issue into the public eye, as Mr Goff has just mentioned.

This Government, in this matter led by the Minister of Justice, has been taking a close look at the justice sector as a whole. That process includes a very substantial rewriting of the Judicature Act, which is the statute that governs the courts. This is a significant piece of work that involves looking at the whole variety of issues relating to the courts. That will include the law of contempt of court, and the issue of vexatious litigants, which my colleague the member for New Plymouth mentioned a moment ago. It also includes the structure of the courts and examining whether there should be greater specialisation of judges in order to deal with specific areas such as commercial cases. These reforms represent a rational and systematic approach to reviewing the way our courts operate. The last thing the judiciary or the public needs is a continuation of the piecemeal reform and legislative field surgery that has sometimes prevented careful and constructive consideration of these issues.

No one would argue that this bill’s aim of ensuring public confidence in the judiciary is not admirable. The bill has been offered up to the House by a very thoughtful member, Dr Kennedy Graham, and it deserves consideration by us and by a select committee. These issues are important, and a full airing of them can only assist in whatever steps this House takes towards ensuring public confidence in the justice system in general. Therefore, National is supporting this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee so that we may carefully consider the issue. However, we expect that any further progress will be part of the ongoing review of the courts that is currently in progress.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : I am very happy to take a call in support of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, brought to this House by the honourable member Dr Kennedy Graham. As members will know, Labour is supporting this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is hard to argue against a bill that seeks to extend the principle of transparency to any branch of government, and the record of this party in Government is one of supporting the advance of open government and transparency. On the face of it, we see no reason why this bill, which seeks to extend transparency to the judiciary, should not at least receive serious consideration at the select committee. The executive branch of Government, as my colleague Phil Goff noted, has been subject to the disclosure of pecuniary interests since 1990, and it was the fifth Labour Government in 2006 that extended the same requirement to all members of Parliament. Now we can see that was undoubtedly a good thing.

As previous speakers have observed, the primary benefit that this bill seeks to achieve is the strengthening of confidence in the judiciary through transparency. This will ensure that where there might be a conflict of interest in a case due to the particular interests of a member of the judiciary, it can be resolved earlier rather than on a case by case basis.

The purpose of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill is to promote the due administration of justice by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests, just as Cabinet Ministers and members of Parliament currently do, and in doing so that will reduce the potential for perceived or real conflicts of interest. The Law Commission, as has been noted, is working on these matters now and will bring a report to Parliament. That will undoubtedly be of great assistance to the select committee as it weighs up these issues. The commission has already released an issues paper on this matter, as part of efforts to modernise the Judicature Act, and I want to quote one or two passages from that issues paper. The commission noted that there are more than 50 tribunals in New Zealand—many of which require a legally qualified tribunal chairperson—dealing with a wide range of legal issues. It asked: “Why should people exercising at least quasi-judicial powers not also be covered?” by these kinds of provisions.

The Law Commission also said that the primary question is whether a register of judges’ pecuniary interests is necessary or appropriate. If the answer to this question is yes, then there are a number of other questions that the select committee will have to consider about the scope and requirements of such a register, whom it will apply to, what level of detail is required, and how widely available the resulting information should be. Those are all, I think, useful issues that the commission poses. Previous speakers have noted the importance of maintaining privacy for those who are covered by such a register, and, as is the case with MPs’ pecuniary interests declarations, there will be a need to ensure that the information is presented in a way that does protect the privacy of individuals.

The Law Commission’s preliminary view was that no legislative intervention is required to the substantive law relating to recusal for financial interests by a judge, but “the process by which recusal applications are entertained in the … courts could usefully stand refinement and publication.” The question is how much detail, what kind of scope is required, and what the cost of those provisions would be in relation to the benefits. I think the really useful observation made by the commission was that the value of transparency is that it increases public confidence in our institutions of government. Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) : I have listened with great interest to the debate. I would like to thank all members here for the very respectful and thoughtful nature of the debate, and for their support at the first reading of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. We are, of course, well aware of the work that has already gone into the question of pecuniary interests by the Law Commission, some of which was in response to Dr Graham’s member’s bill. I am grateful that the commission should take this issue with the seriousness that it warrants and devote priority to the matter.

We acknowledge the intent of the Government, explained by the Attorney-General and also members here in the House today, that the select committee consider approaching the bill within the broader context of the reform of the Judicature Act. We assure all members that we will work in a positive spirit with the Government and other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee to advance the general aims of the bill and the judicial reform package that the Government is intending to bring in. We look forward to working with it to those ends. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : I move, That the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member has the floor.

PHIL TWYFORD: This bill would ban the possession, use, sale, manufacture, testing, and transit of uranium weapons within New Zealand and by agents of the New Zealand Government. Depleted uranium has been described as the Agent Orange of the 21st century. There is growing international concern about the health risks it poses to combatants, civilians, and the environment. I want to make it clear from the outset that definitive scientific studies conclusively demonstrating the health impacts of depleted uranium weapons have not been done. Nevertheless, this bill takes the precautionary approach, because we believe there is sufficient concern and sufficient evidence that uranium weapons do pose an unacceptable risk. Belgium and Costa Rica have in recent years legislated to ban depleted uranium weapons, and for New Zealand to adopt a similar ban would add our voice to a growing international movement, just as we did with nuclear weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions.

Let me explain for a minute a little about depleted uranium weapons. Depleted uranium is the by-product of the processing of uranium ore for use in nuclear reactors and in nuclear weapons. It is an extremely hard substance and over the last 25 years militaries have chosen to use depleted uranium weapons primarily as an armour-piercing munition. It has been used in a number of recent conflicts: both the first and second Gulf Wars and in the Balkans, and there is some dispute and argument about whether it has been used in Afghanistan in recent years.

When the depleted uranium warhead impacts, it ignites at an extremely high temperature, and a radioactive and chemically toxic gas is released. This is what is primarily the thing that risks the damage to both combatants and civilians who are exposed. About one-third of the 800,000 United States veterans of the 1991 Gulf War now claim disability benefits for mystery illnesses, and depleted uranium exposure has been put forward as one of the risk factors that is likely to be a factor in that syndrome. There has been a sharp increase in cancers and child deformities in Iraq after 1991 and 2003.

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

PHIL TWYFORD: Depleted uranium weapons have been linked to a sharp upsurge in cancers and birth deformities in Iraq after the wars in both 1991 and 2003. The most recent cases, which have attracted considerable media coverage, were reported by Iraqi doctors in Fallujah, which was the subject of very heavy bombardment in 2004. Depleted uranium weapons also leave land contaminated, and the data from Iraq indicates that those weapons have not been restricted only to armoured targets but have been used extensively against civilian targets. The result is a very large number of contaminated hot spots.

Experience shows that decontamination is extremely difficult and expensive to achieve. This is why the definitive epidemiological studies on the effects depleted uranium weapons have not yet been done. Such a study would require full transparency from the military authorities, including their targeting data, detailed site management and environmental assessments, a stable cohort of civilians numbering in the thousands, a stable political situation in the affected area, detailed pre- and post-conflict health records, and the political will from Governments to fund this work. Think about Iraq, which is the place where depleted uranium weapons have most recently been used. These conditions simply cannot be met. There has been a breakdown in the health authorities, loss of records, massive displacement of the civilian population, ongoing security concerns, and active obstruction by the US authorities.

Nevertheless, depleted uranium does pose a serious risk to human health and the environment. Radioactive dust particles from depleted uranium weapons contain a high proportion of uranium, which is a known carcinogen and causes birth defects. Multiple studies suggest that leukaemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects are a result of chronic exposure to depleted uranium. Three UN resolutions, each of which New Zealand voted for, acknowledge depleted uranium as a potential hazard, as do the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Programme, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and as do, I should add, the military users of these weapons, who all have extensive precautionary safeguards in place to reduce the exposure of their personnel to depleted uranium. But civilians have no such protections.

The question is, then, when should States act when there is clear evidence of potential risk but the best available science is unable to provide the required level of certainty? If depleted uranium weapons were being used on New Zealand soil, or our Government was grappling with hundreds of contaminated hot spots and contaminated wreckage, then I feel sure that our Government would not monitor the situation for years or decades, waiting for conclusive scientific studies; we would apply the precautionary principle, just as we do in our Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

This bill asks that those basic health and environmental protection norms should be available to the many and not just the few. The bill seeks to add uranium weapons to the list of weapons that New Zealand has outlawed as international law has progressed over the last 100 years. That list includes chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions.

Why should we prohibit a weapon that New Zealand does not make or use? Well, there are two reasons. The first is that New Zealand soldiers risk exposure to depleted uranium weapons in the battlefield, which is why the defence force requires personnel returning from places like Afghanistan to provide urine samples so that their exposure to low-level radiation can be checked. I also note that when this issue was discussed at the select committee, Jerry Mateparae, then the Chief of Defence Force, came along and told the select committee that the defence forces would prefer that New Zealand personnel in the field were not subjected to depleted uranium weapons.

The second reason for considering this bill and the ban it proposes is that by legislating a ban, New Zealand would add its voice to a growing international movement calling for a global treaty outlawing these weapons. We have done it before with landmines, we have done it with cluster munitions, and I submit to this House that now is the time to do it with depleted uranium weapons. In 2009 the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee declined to support a petition brought by a group of citizens in Christchurch asking the committee to consider addressing the central concerns about depleted uranium weaponry. Unfortunately, the committee did not support the petition, and reported back to the House with what I regard as a pretty anodyne and disappointing response on this issue. Labour and the Greens tabled a minority view supporting the petition and calling for a ban based on the precautionary principle. That view inspired this bill, and I hope that members tonight, having heard the arguments, will send this bill to the select committee so the issue can be considered again. Thank you.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : It is interesting how the worm turns. The petition that led to this bill in fact came to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in 2005, and it was promoted by one Robert Ritchie. The then Government—who was the Government in 2005? It was Labour—it was a Labour Government. It let it sit on the Table because it did not want to address it until this Government, the National-led Government, came into office in 2008. At that point we had the appendages to address the issue.

I draw on the report of the select committee, which happened to be under my chairmanship. The committee recommended that staff who had been exposed to battle situations, and particularly air force personnel who were involved with our Skyhawks, be constantly monitored, and they are continuing to be constantly monitored. This is because the Skyhawks had depleted uranium on their ailerons. Why? It is not because they are strong but because they are damned heavy. The committee recommended that, yes, we keep monitoring, but we take no action without clear scientific evidence. I am interested that Mr Twyford pulled up comments from the then Chief of Defence Force, General Mateparae, because I very clearly remember asking Jerry Mateparae, the then Chief of Defence Force, “Are you concerned about exposing your troops to situations where there is depleted uranium?”. Check the record: he gave an unequivocal answer of no; he had no concerns about that.

This bill, if it were implemented, would make our soldiers criminals if they got into the wrong armoured personnel carrier or Humvee on a joint operation. It would make our people criminals for calling in air support or artillery support from any ally and failing to check what ammunition they were going to use. It would make criminals of our people planning UN peacekeeping operations who authorised the deployment of foreign nation vehicles with the wrong kinds of armour plating. New Zealand supported a UN General Assembly resolution last year that encourages member States to facilitate and monitor studies and research on depleted uranium by relevant international organisations. Until there is evidence—hard, factual evidence—National will not support this bill. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) : That was a disappointing speech from Mr Hayes, because it deliberately misrepresents a number of things. I just want to address a couple of comments that he made in his very brief speech.

We are not worried about the fact that there might have been depleted uranium in the ailerons of the Skyhawks. That is not going to be a health hazard. We are not worried that there might be depleted uranium in the ballast on an aircraft, although I notice that commercial aircraft are now phasing that out. What we are worried about is when depleted uranium is used as a munition, and when it explodes at a very high temperature and creates a dust that is chemically toxic. Mr Hayes is not so silly that he does not know that. That is why that speech was a misleading speech, because he was creating a straw man and knocking it over, when that is not the point of the matter at all.

We are sufficiently concerned about the impact of depleted uranium when our troops serve in areas like Iraq as part of the peacekeeping group there, and in Afghanistan, that every single New Zealand service person is tested for the effects of uranium in their urine when they come home. That is how concerned we are about it. We know that it is a hazard. We know that it can cause damage to the kidneys and to the lungs. We know that it is a toxic chemical, and that is the concern that we have.

The second thing that Mr Hayes said that is absolutely wrong is, of course, that it would create criminals, he alleged, out of New Zealand service personnel operating with the military forces of other countries that use depleted uranium. No, Mr Hayes, you know that is simply not correct. It is no more correct than the allegation that because New Zealand actually led the charge against cluster munitions, had the Wellington conference, and was one of seven countries that led to the breakthrough on the convention of cluster munitions—we say that we will not use those ourselves, and appropriately so—that New Zealand is prevented from serving alongside the United States, which does use cluster munitions.

We will use all of the power in our persuasion to ensure that cluster munitions be banned and that landmines be banned, but it has never stopped the interoperability of New Zealand service personnel with other countries that have not signed up to the Ottawa Convention, or to the Oslo convention, in that regard. It is absolutely wrong, and if the only ground for the opposition of the National Government to this legislation is what Mr Hayes has said, then that shows that National is a party that has not done its homework, that has not thought this through, and that is not prepared to subject this bill to a select committee process, where people can come in and pass on their expertise and their evidence about it.

This bill is a very moderate bill. What it says is that we should ban the possession, use, sale, manufacture, testing, and transit of uranium in all conventional munitions and armour within New Zealand—Mr Hayes, within New Zealand—and by agents of the New Zealand Government. That follows a precautionary principle. We know that depleted uranium and the dust caused by the use of munitions involving depleted uranium is carcinogenic. We know that it is damaging to health. We are worried about the impact of that, and the Governor-General and former Chief of Defence Force has made that statement himself. This is something to be concerned about. And it is something to be concerned about not because of the fact that there is not yet all of the conclusive evidence there but because we worry about the long-term effects of this.

I remember the age when the military said that agent orange in Viet Nam was nothing to worry about—it was nothing to worry about. They did not know—they simply did not know. It makes sense that when we do not know what all the impacts of depleted uranium munitions might be, but we do know that the immediate impact is dangerous and damaging to health, that we take a precautionary policy.

Yes, we support the work that is ongoing with the United Nations Environment Programme. They have found that depleted uranium munitions do contaminate soils and groundwater. We know that there are concerns around the potential of this as a cause of birth defects. There are birth defects in areas where it has been used that are unaccounted for. The direct lines of connection have not yet been proved conclusively, but there is enough to worry about to say that this is a likely cause of damage to unborn children and to children who are born, and therefore we should have nothing to do with it.

New Zealand does not have to make big sacrifices in order to adopt the principles in this bill. But we can show leadership in the world, just as we showed over cluster munitions, and just as we showed over landmines through our leadership and support before those causes became fashionable. I say to Mr Hayes and the National Government: think again, at least send this bill to a select committee, enable the evidence to be put up there, enable the debate to be had, and do not simply try to close down the debate because it is not convenient to you. This is a bill that has been carefully worked through. I think it will have a lot of support in the wider population of New Zealand, and I hope that all of the political parties in this House send it to a select committee so a proper examination of the consequences of the use of depleted uranium can be worked through.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Let us go back a couple of years, to 2005, when the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee decided—

Brendan Horan: That’s 7 years.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it is just a couple—it is a couple. The chair, John Hayes, who spoke in the debate earlier on, is absolutely right. I just want to say that if you have a look at Phil Twyford’s bill, the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill, it is basically three lines that have been stolen from the minority report. Sometimes we have very in-depth minority reports. But the minority report in 2005 was three lines long. So, did Phil Twyford do his homework? Of course he did. He went to the select committee, picked up the report, and cut and pasted three lines. And the three lines in that report said to ban the manufacture, the use, the storage, the supply, and the transit of armour and munitions. That is all it said. That was the minority report. So this is nothing but a flight of fancy to get the guy in the news.

All of the scientific evidence says, and even the International Atomic Energy Agency says—and I will read it out. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that “Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts.” It is actually time to look at the real things in front of this country and not some sort of Fabian fantasy that is going on inside that small head of Mr Phil Twyford.

Hon Simon Bridges: That sounds like a movie Shane Jones would watch!

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, well, it could have been. There is no reason for us to go down this path.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. That was an absolutely shocking couple of calls from the National members just then. This is a legitimate, serious, and very prescient issue facing this Parliament and we hear nothing but politics from the National members—nothing but politics. You know, it is just like—paraphrasing that famous New Zealander—you can almost smell the depleted uranium coming off their breath. We would like to congratulate the member Phil Twyford. This Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill is a good bill. The Green Party is proud to be supporting it. We are disappointed that National will not be supporting it. You know, I did not hear any legitimate arguments why National could not send it to a select committee, so we could get the experts, we could get the military in, we could maybe even hear from some of our allies, and thrash out the issues. Instead, this party wants to throw it out the door—to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is a significant issue. It has been shown in numerous reports around the world from the United Nations Environment Programme that it does pose a health risk to humans and it does pose an environmental risk. I note that in 2006 New Zealand became a signatory to the UN General Assembly resolution accepting that depleted uranium munitions were a potential risk to health. I do not get what the problem is with sending this bill to a select committee so that we can have this discussion. This bill is a simple bill. It does only a few things. It seeks to ban the possession, use, sale, manufacturing, testing, and transit of uranium munitions around New Zealand.

It is important that New Zealand sends a message to the world. We have been a world leader on cluster bombs. We have been a world leader on landmines. We have been a world leader on banning nuclear weapons around the world. The “New Zealand disease”, as it was called, was the risk that we would spread our nuclear-free zone around the world, and it has happened in a number of countries, and history has proved us right. I am convinced that history will prove the National Party wrong on this serious, important issue. We could have that debate around what impact it would mean for our Defence Force. In fact, what I think our New Zealand Defence Force would like is having the legal cover so that its personnel do not have to work with depleted uranium around the world. We know that we are already testing them when they come back from overseas deployments. We want to give them protection so that they do not have to be involved in something that I consider is immoral, a significant health problem, and something we should be banning. New Zealand, if we were passing this law, would be sending a strong message to the world.

I would like to touch on a different point, which is the fact that New Zealand has been trans-shipping annually in the last almost two decades through our ports around 5,000 tonnes of uranium yellowcake from Australia. The fact is that I have gone through all of the Environmental Risk Management Authority reports and one of the destinations of the Australian uranium yellowcake is a facility in Metropolis, Illinois, the same facility in the US that produces depleted uranium munitions. I believe that New Zealand is complicit in the international nuclear trade. We are complicit in making it cheaper and facilitating the trade so that the US can manufacture horrible, horrible weapons.

New Zealand should not be part of that nuclear trade, and that is why the Green Party is proud to be supporting this bill. We have been a leader on these issues before. History has proven us right. History will prove us right again. It is absolutely disappointing that the National Party is not supporting it, but we take our hats off to Phil Twyford. We do not think this is about politics. We think this is about a serious, important issue that New Zealanders and people around the world are facing, and we congratulate them and wish this bill all the best.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : It is a pleasure to take a short call on the first reading of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. Let me state up front that this is the first time I have spoken on a bill in this House where I have opposed a bill. I oppose this bill because it is wrong in its formation, and it is not based on scientific evidence—the evidence-based approach that this Government takes.

What the bill does is seek to ban the use of depleted uranium ammunitions and armour until research proves that it does not have an adverse effect on health. We on this side support continued monitoring and research into the effects of depleted uranium, but we will not take further action without clear scientific evidence. This stance is supported, as my honourable colleague the Hon Tau Henare has said, by recommendations of the 2001 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the 2010 submission to the United Nations by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A number of evaluations of the environmental and health impact of depleted uranium munitions have been performed. Together with the United Nations and several international appraisals, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the WHO have come to the conclusion that “the results of these assessments indicated that the existence of depleted uranium residues dispersed in the environment does not”—does not—“pose a radiological hazard to the population of the affected regions.”

We oppose this bill. It is another clear example that the Labour Opposition is legislating and creating problems, rather than legislating to fix problems, as this National Government does. I oppose this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the honourable member, a reminder about the use of electronic devices in the Chamber. Can I advise members that the rules relating to the use of electronic devices in the Chamber have been relaxed in recent years. Their use is permitted, but not so as to disrupt the business of the House, and they must be switched to silent mode when in the Chamber. Any member using electronic devices for notes from which to refresh their memories when speaking in debate is fine. At these times they may be placed on the top surface of a member’s desk. At all other times they should be placed on the drop-down work surface so that they in no way obstruct or interfere with the Speaker’s view of the House or any of its members.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) : I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the first reading of this thoroughly commendable member’s bill, the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. New Zealand First supports the broad aims of this bill and we are happy to support it going to select committee. We do have some concerns about certain of the provisions of this bill, notably the extraterritorial application outlined in clause 6. We are very unhappy about that particular aspect of this bill. It is not the view of New Zealand First that New Zealand should seek, as a general rule, to extend the reach of our laws beyond the limits of our own territorial jurisdiction. There is some justification, we think, for extending the application of New Zealand law in certain circumstances, for example to those who organise or participate in child sex tours to countries whose laws do not, in our view, offer adequate protections to the young and the vulnerable. But we do not see the implications of depleted uranium falling into the same category as those types of acts.

Depleted uranium as a metal has properties that make it of great value in military applications. It is a very heavy, dense metal, heavier than lead, and also very hard, second in hardness only to tungsten. In a previous incarnation I was involved in the manufacture of anti-tank missiles, and in those days depleted uranium was regarded as being as near to the mythical material unobtainium as it was possible to get. Armour made from depleted uranium could not be pierced by anything other than depleted uranium, and penetrators made from depleted uranium could slice their way through any armour made from any other material. Depleted uranium penetrator rounds sharpen themselves as they cut through armour, and the metal ignites on impact, at the relatively low temperature of 500 to 600 degrees Celsius created by the heat of friction from the impact itself. Thus depleted uranium rounds self-ignite, and do not require an additional incendiary charge.

Playing devil’s advocate, then, from the point of view of the manufacturer or indeed the user of armour and anti-armour weapons, depleted uranium is a very useful and desirable material indeed, and that is why it is used militarily. But depleted uranium does have civilian applications, and in assessing these uses it is important to remember that depleted uranium is not regarded as a particularly radioactive material. Depleted uranium is utilised, amongst other things, in radiation shields for the transport and storage of nuclear waste, in industrial X-ray applications, as a counterweight and ballast in ships and aircraft, as other members have mentioned, and as an ingredient in some white and fluorescent pigments, including those used in dentistry.

Depleted uranium is created as a by-product of either the enrichment of uranium for nuclear reactor fuel or the production of nuclear weapons—

Hon Maurice Williamson: How does the member know all this?

RICHARD PROSSER: —or as a by-product of the consumption of nuclear fuel in naval and power-generating reactors. If the member had been listening, he would understand that I have been involved in the manufacture of anti-tank missiles, so that is how I know.

In either case, the resultant metal contains a lower proportion of highly fissile isotopes and a higher proportion of less fissile isotopes, meaning that depleted uranium is a heavier, more dense, and actually less radioactive material than natural uranium, or yellowcake as it was referred to earlier. In medical terms it is regarded as a toxin rather than a radiation risk. However, when it is burnt or otherwise destroyed as part of military munitions, depleted uranium produces a very fine dust, sometimes mistaken for smoke by the way it behaves. This dust, because of the way it accumulates in the body and living tissue, is radioactive and does create a radiation risk. This dust is a known carcinogen, and the author of this bill is quite correct in identifying it as such.

We share the concern that depleted uranium may contain the risk of becoming the agent orange of the next generation of returned servicemen, and we agree with the adoption of the precautionary principle as far as its use in New Zealand is concerned, but we are also concerned that the only New Zealanders or agents of the New Zealand Government who may be involved in the development, use, sale, manufacture, transit, or testing of depleted uranium munitions in overseas jurisdictions will be military personnel or scientists on exercise transfer or secondment to the Governments or military forces of the United States or Great Britain. Depleted uranium munitions are manufactured in nearly 20 countries, but it is only Great Britain and the US that will admit to their use, and it is only those two countries with which we are likely to be associated that will be using them. Neither is likely to be swayed from using depleted uranium because of the position taken by New Zealand, but any attempt to extend the reach of domestic legislation beyond our jurisdiction is likely to have the potential to interfere with our defence and diplomatic relationships.

That said, we do feel that the point has to be made, and that New Zealand does need to stamp our mark on the moral high ground with regard to the military use of depleted uranium. It is a horrible, toxic substance when used in this way, and, oxymoronic though it may sound, it has no more a rightful place on the modern civilised battlefield than did poison gas a century ago. In any case there is far more devilish weaponry, I can tell this House, under development today, that will render ballistic and even kinetic weapons and physical armour obsolete within a few decades, and any efforts we can make to hasten the demise of the military use of depleted uranium can only be to the greater good.

In closing I reiterate that New Zealand First agrees with the broad aims of this bill, and we are happy to support it going to a select committee, where the concerns that we do have may be addressed. Thank you.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I stand to speak in opposition to the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. I understand that the member Phil Twyford does feel strongly about this issue, but National stands in opposition to this bill because we do not believe in boxing at shadows. We do not believe in passing legislation that would put us in the league of a number of countries such as Belgium. What are the other countries? That is the only country that has banned depleted uranium. So although we like to be world leaders around the world, we do not necessarily have to be the ones who go off banning things unnecessarily, when, to date, no adverse health effects have been identified by New Zealand Defence Force personnel, and no conclusive evidence that depleted uranium poses a significant health or environmental threat has been found, either.

The people of Te Atatū made a bold decision last year. They elected Phil Stoner Twyford to Parliament to be their representative, to champion their most significant issues, and to stand up for them on the big issues of the day. What have we got here today? A bill about banning depleted uranium. This is a bit of a non-event. This is boxing at shadows.

Hon Maurice Williamson: This is a huge issue in my electorate—a huge issue!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: This is not a huge issue in my electorate, Mr Williamson. I can assure the House that I have thoroughly asked my constituents at every single constituent meeting—no, no, I am just joking here. This is not an issue that I think weighs heavily on the hearts of New Zealanders.

We know from the report that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee did most recently that this is not an issue that is pressing for the country to deal with. I just want to finish off by quoting a paragraph from the select committee report. It said: “Agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation, and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted research into the effect of depleted uranium on the human population, and generally conclude that the risk of post-conflict contamination is statistically insignificant.” I suggest that this bill is also insignificant and is not worthy of being passed by the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify whether the way that the Hon Tau Henare’s iPad is positioned is in line with your earlier clarification to this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise members that members may use such instruments during the course of a debate when they are in the House, but when members are not debating, they must be removed from the top of the bench and placed on the desk underneath.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. What does not give me great pleasure is the lack of intellectual honesty that we have seen coming from the fatuous speeches from the other side. They make light of something that has the potential, if not proven already, to cause deformity, and to be carcinogenic—to cause cancers. For this Parliament not to take this seriously should make all of those members opposite hold their heads down at the moment—and they are, except for two, and so they should.

I have never heard such offensive trivia coming from the members opposite, and they turn that into an art form usually. But right now we have been debating a bill that asks for a very precautionary approach to be taken to an issue about which there are serious international concerns. I ask members opposite whether they have never ever in their lives learnt something that made them do things differently. Have they never once had the occasion to be informed about something, which then conferred upon them a sense of responsibility to do something? What these disappointing contributions from the National members are causing me to get angry about is the fact that knowledge brings responsibility. There is evidence. There is sufficient evidence—

Hon Members: Where?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Let us see. The United Nations Environment Programme has found that depleted uranium munitions have the potential to contaminate soils and groundwater. Uranium is a known carcinogen. It induces birth defects. Dust particles from depleted uranium weapons contain high proportions of uranium.

I do not know what all the science is about when it comes to depleted uranium. The New Zealand First speaker who spoke before me, Richard Prosser, clearly knows more about this area than I do, but I am willing to learn, which is more than can be said about any of the National contributors to this debate. Not only have I never heard a single serious word come out of the mouth of the Hon Simon Bridges but I have not heard—

Hon Simon Bridges: I haven’t spoken on the bill yet.

Hon MARYAN STREET: Exactly my point—exactly my point, Mr Bridges. Thank you for confirming what I just said. So can I just say that in the course of learning about agent orange some decades ago, we came to do things differently. We did not know about the effects of agent orange in the 1960s, but we do know the effects of agent orange now, and we have done work to compensate people for their suffering as a result of that.

The fact that we do not have all the information about the effects of depleted uranium does not absolve anybody in this House from the responsibility of looking into it if it has the potential to harm human beings. Why is that lot over there denying the opportunity for a moderate bill to go for examination to the select committee? Take some responsibility. This is not party politics here. This is about whether or not when one knows something, one can finally do something about it. When one knows something, does one take responsibility for it?

My frustration here is that the lemmings on the other side will simply play politics with any good idea that comes from anybody who is not of their party. Any good idea that comes from somebody who is not of their party, they will shoot down in principle—and the only principle is that it does not come from their party. This is a shocking performance. If something has the potential to harm human beings, why does any member on that side of the House refuse to do anything about it? That lack of responsibility, that kind of attitude, is the sort of attitude that we would not wish to pass on to our children. I want my daughter to be responsible when she learns about things. The example from members opposite will never make that happen for their children. What we have seen tonight is a complete travesty.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I have listened very carefully to the reasons my colleagues have articulated as to why they cannot support the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill. I join with them in opposing the bill.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : In 1995 I was working for Oxfam, and at the time there was an international conference on the international convention on inhumane weapons. The National Prime Minister of the time was Jim Bolger, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade was Don McKinnon. I worked with a range of Opposition party leaders, including Peter Dunne, Winston Peters, and Helen Clark, and together those Opposition leaders went to Mr Bolger, the Prime Minister, and said that the New Zealand Government’s position needed to change, that New Zealand should support a ban on landmines, and that we should change our position. At that time, New Zealand’s position was to not support a global ban on landmines.

Mr Bolger and Mr McKinnon were a Prime Minister and a Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the day who, I would say, are very different in character and temperament from the current crop of National MPs whom we see on the other side of the House, because they took principled positions. They were prepared to listen. They were prepared to summon political courage and to do the right thing. After that dialogue happened, they adopted the position to ban landmines. New Zealand became one of the first countries in the world to support a global ban on landmines. I think that the performance we have seen from the National Party members in this debate is an absolute indictment of the courage, the ethics, and the intellectual rigour that we would hope members would bring to this House.

I want to thank Robert Green and the Depleted Uranium Education Team, who are a New Zealand campaign group on this issue and who inspired this bill. I want to thank Peace Movement Aotearoa, the Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility, and the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, which is doing a lot of good work on this issue on the international stage.

Hon Annette King: What about Graham Kelly?

PHIL TWYFORD: I want to remember Graham Kelly, a former member of this House who is with us tonight. He is a tireless campaigner and an advocate on these issues.

Finally, I want to urge the members of this House to think seriously about the precautionary principle in relation to depleted uranium weapons. It was really disappointing to hear one National member after another stand up in this House and parrot the phrase “there is no conclusive evidence”, as if they had been completely deaf to the statements that had preceded their speeches about the fact that numerous international agencies have said that there is a potential link between depleted uranium weapons and the risks to health and the environment, and the argument that there is sufficient concern and evidence to warrant a ban based on a precautionary principle until conclusive epidemiological studies are done. The very nature of depleted uranium weapons—the fact that they affect civilians and combatants and communities in war—makes those definitive scientific studies almost impossible to carry out. That is the basis of this argument, and I am sorry to say that members on that side of the House completely missed it the first time round.

It was incredible to hear the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, John Hayes, stand up and raise as one of his chief objections to the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill the fact that our old Skyhawks had depleted uranium ballast. The objection about depleted uranium weapons is not proximity to the material itself; it is that when the weapons explode and ignite they disperse radioactive and chemically toxic dust, which is incredibly harmful to human health. After being on a select committee that considered this issue for about 3 years, for the chair of the committee to come to this House tonight and raise the question of the Skyhawks’ ballast absolutely beggars belief.

He also raised the point that this bill would make criminals out of New Zealand service personnel serving overseas. Does he not know that the landmines ban and the cluster munitions ban have interoperability provisions in those Acts that allow New Zealand defence personnel to serve and fight alongside allied personnel whose countries are not signatories to those bans on cluster munitions and landmines? It was absolutely ignorant, and it was beneath that member to come to this House and raise those objections.

The member Tau Henare raised a criticism that this bill was based on a cut and paste from the select committee report. If he went and read the nuclear-free legislation, he would know that this bill is modelled closely on that nuclear-free legislation.

I want to thank the New Zealand First and Greens members for their thoughtful responses on, and support for, this bill. I urge the House to vote for this bill and send it to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding issue of order in the House about the mentioning of either members or parties and whether they are here or whether they are not. We are not allowed to do it. That member over there just said that a particular party was not here.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : The member has stated an interjection that was said to another member in the House, and claimed that a member was claiming that another member was not in the House. If you were to take every interjection or comment that was made, then I think you would find it very difficult to maintain order in this House. I also find that member being a tell-tale tit at this stage—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member was on track and was doing very, very well. I am choosing to ignore that interjection, as I am choosing to ignore the other one.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I beg your indulgence for a new member. Can you just enlighten me, please—when it is 60 all, how is it lost?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is because you have to have a positive majority in favour.

Brendan Horan: OK. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider this bill, should it by some miracle make it through the first reading. Amendments to the Shop Trading Hours Act have been controversial since, indeed, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act of 1990, which removed trading restrictions except for Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day. Exemptions were provided for shops selling certain types of goods, as well as for shops in specified places. However, there is now no legislative ability to grant further exemptions—and that is the problem. Easter trading is just such a contentious issue, and any proposed change always gives rise to questions about how to strike a balance between the interests of businesses and the interests of employees, alongside public recognition of religious activities. The intention of this bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, is to provide the balance between choice for employers to conduct business, protections for employees, and, of course, community interest.

This is a member’s bill. This is a members’ day. This is the Waitaki electorate’s bill. It is just trying to fix an anomaly that exists between Queenstown and Wānaka, where Queenstown can open over Easter but Wānaka cannot. It is, however, not a local bill, so it is not confined to Queenstown and Wānaka. It had to be a member’s bill, so I have chosen to make this a Waitaki District Council bill. So there is a secondary benefit contained within this bill. Not only would it overcome the anomaly that exists between Queenstown and Wānaka, two important tourism centres for the New Zealand economy, but there is a secondary benefit there because there are shops in other local authority areas contained with the Waitaki electorate that could also open over Easter if they chose to. So maybe the retailers in Geraldine might choose to open over Easter, because it is on a major tourist route. Maybe in Ōāmaru there are shops that may choose to open and trade over Easter, because that is on an emerging and developing tourism route. Hey, maybe Cromwell—in fact, I am sure there are businesses in Cromwell that would choose to open over Easter if they had the ability to do so. I could go through all the tourist towns in my electorate and name them. There are many that if this bill passed might choose to open over Easter if they had the ability to do so.

I bring this issue to Parliament because the Wānaka retailers have asked me to do it.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, so what?

JACQUI DEAN: The member opposite says “So what?”. Maybe that speaks volumes about—

Simon O’Connor: Because they’re listening.

JACQUI DEAN: Yeah, well—maybe that speaks volumes about why this amendment should go through. This amendment should go through because commerce over Easter is actually very important to towns like Wānaka. And I will tell that member—who lives somewhere in the North Island, if I am correct—why. Wānaka over Easter is the most marvellous place. Every second year we host the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show, and so—

Dr Rajen Prasad: Where’s the evidence that more money will be spent?

JACQUI DEAN: Evidence. Thank you. The member, the doubter opposite, is asking me for the evidence. If he does me the courtesy of listening, I will tell him. Every second year in Wānaka we have Warbirds over Wānaka, where up to 100,000 people descend on Central Otago—so that is Wānaka, Queenstown, Cromwell, Alexandra, even Ranfurly—to attend Warbirds over Wānaka. That is up to 100,000 people in the region. That is a figure that has been supplied to me. Those people are in Central Otago for up to 4 or 5 days. Those up to 100,000 extra people in that region want to shop. How do I know they want to shop? Because the retailers tell me that it is so worth their while opening that they are prepared to do so in the face of flouting the law, and have done so over a number of years. And why are they prepared to open over Easter? Because they need that trade. They need that trade to see them through the lean times, which all retailers have to face. That is why I am extremely happy to bring this bill to the House.

It is beyond me why the members opposite are so against a retailer making a living. What is it? What is it about a retailer making a living? I am just going to read to the House, with the indulgence of the Speaker, a submission from a previous Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council, Clive Geddes, who said in 2006: “Queenstown has had a general exemption from the restrictions on trading at Easter and at other times over many years. This reflects our position as an international destination where visitors and residents alike can enjoy many activities and events that would otherwise be stifled by greater restrictions. We receive no complaints about the flexibility that this offers business and the community, and it is exercised responsibly by all of the parties involved.” That was the previous Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council, and if a mayor is not in touch with his community, then—well, of course a mayor is in touch with his community.

I acknowledge that there are reservations and objections to Easter trading, and I am going to go over a few of those. There is—and, of course, this is something like the 11th or 12th time this issue has been brought to the House—religious objection to the liberalisation of Easter trading. I respect that position. I utterly respect the position of Christians and people from other religions who choose to celebrate the very nature of Easter—of course I do. But although I respect that position I also say that nobody is forcing anybody to shop. It is a matter of choice what one does at Easter. If one has a very strongly held religious conviction, then that is up to the individual.

I also hear of objections to Easter trading about the family. I note that there are already 11 public holidays in New Zealand and 4 weeks’ annual leave prorated, so I would argue that there is plenty of time for people to spend with their family.

I want to talk about worker protections. Although this bill is imperfect, and silent on worker protections, I want to tell the House this: should this bill get to the Commerce Committee—and I welcome the opportunity for it to do so, because I think that would give the committee the opportunity to talk seriously and in a considered way about worker protection—these are my bottom lines. Employees of shops opening to trade on Easter Sunday would have the absolute right to refuse to work on that day. If an employee’s agreement to work on that day is not given, then there would be no penalty on that worker. Where employers wish to trade on Easter Sunday, they would be required to give employees reasonable notice. And the final point I would make in this contribution is that, actually, in Wānaka, most of the people working in shops over Easter are there because they want to work. Generally, they are—

Dr Rajen Prasad: Oh, come on.

JACQUI DEAN: You see, there is the problem. The Opposition does not actually like work. It does not acknowledge that workers enjoy working. Do you know what? In Wānaka people go to work because then they get to play on the ski fields and they get to enjoy everything that Wānaka has to offer. I will have an opportunity to make another contribution to this debate, but I certainly encourage members to look at this bill with an open mind. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I think this is probably the sixth or seventh time since I have been in Parliament that I have spoken on an Easter shop trading bill, and I think it is probably up to the 10th or 11th time that we have had a member’s bill endeavouring to take away the right of workers not to work on Easter Sunday. In fact, this bill also includes Easter Friday.

I was going to make some comments about my appreciation of the fact that it is members’ day today, and that members have a right to bring bills to Parliament and represent the things that they are interested in and their constituents are interested in and want to see. However, having heard the last few comments from the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, I am not inclined to be so generous. And the disgraceful contributions from the Government on Phil Twyford’s bill I think have made me feel less generous about Jacqui Dean’s bill.

I am voting against this bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I have been very interested to follow the journey of Jacqui Dean’s bill from the time it was first pulled out of the ballot. We had way back on 8 September 2010 a statement headed “Easter Trading Bill Postponed” and saying that she “will do more work on her Easter bill before it goes to Parliament. … I plan to do some work on the area of worker protection. These protections are in existing legislation but they weren’t spelt out in the bill.” Well, she has not done any work on that. She has just outlined some bottom lines. She clearly does not understand this issue of choice for workers—to choose whether to work or not. We have canvassed this issue time and again in these debates. An absolute right to refuse to work—an absolute right to refuse to work—when you are on a 90-day trial period, you can get the sack for no reason, and you do not have the right to challenge it? That is one reason why an absolute right will never work, because that Government’s laws already mean that somebody can be sacked for no reason. There are to be no penalties on that worker—well, I would hope not. The law does not allow that now. And “reasonable notice”, again, is meaningless. So the member has not done very much work on the area of worker protection—well, no work on the area of worker protection.

Can I say again that on previous bills before the Commerce Committee this area was canvassed in great detail. There were two members’ bills. I think there was a former member’s bill, actually, and also Steve Chadwick’s bill. The area was canvassed in great detail, and yet at the end of it there was no satisfaction as to being able to say to workers “You will not be forced to work on Easter Sunday.”—as it was then. Now it is Easter Sunday and Easter Friday.

Then on 5 April 2012 the member said that she was planning to withdraw Good Friday from the bill to make it more acceptable—

Jacqui Dean: Yes.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, it is still here, though.

Jacqui Dean: No, no, it’s here.

DARIEN FENTON: Oh, you have got a Supplementary Order Paper?

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is probably not in order, but just to let you know that I have a Supplementary Order Paper that would delete “Good Friday” from the bill.

DARIEN FENTON: No, sorry.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, it is actually a debatable issue. I call the honourable member Darien Fenton.

DARIEN FENTON: OK, I accept that that is there. However, obviously, there are some concerns from her fellow caucus members about Easter Friday, and I suspect there will be the same ones about Easter Sunday.

But the thing that I found really interesting about the journey of this bill—this is the second time this member has tried to force workers to work on Easter Sunday—was the comment in the Southland Times on 10 April 2012: “Moves to liberalise Easter trading rules would not see workers being forced to turn up for work but promoted economic growth, she said. ‘The sooner the union accepts that and moves on, the better.’ ” What arrogance is that! What arrogance.

The member raised religious concern and said she has got respect for that—you know, she understands people’s Christian views—but then on the other hand she said that people will not be forced to work on Easter Sunday. Well, actually, they are. In many, many workplaces workers are forced to work on a Sunday. I spent years representing Pacific Island workers who were forced to go to work on Sunday—on White Sunday. They had no choice. The member does not understand how workplaces work. She said she respected religious objection. She obviously does not respect worker objection. She does not respect the right of workers to express a view, and she tells their union that it should just get over it—just get over it. I think that is incredible arrogance, and, if for no other reason, I would not support the bill because of that comment. I do not think she has canvassed the workers’ views in any way, shape, or form, except to tell them to get over it. That is all that the member has done. Their views are really important in this debate, because they are the ones who are going to have to turn up to work.

Let us remind ourselves that at the moment there are only 3½ days in the whole of the year when shops are closed and workers do not have to turn up to work. Honestly, what sort of society have we become when we cannot cope with not shopping for 3½ days a year? The member said that this bill will enable the shops in Wānaka and surrounds to open their businesses and make more money. The member should understand that it does not mean they make more money, and it does not mean more money is spent; it is just spent in that area instead of someone else’s area. It does not create more money by opening—

Jacqui Dean: It does.

DARIEN FENTON: It does not. It definitely does not. There is only so much money to go around. In fact, there is not much money to go around at the moment, at all. Shops can trade, as I said, on 51 out of 52 Sundays, and every public holiday except Good Friday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day.

Colin King: How many days of the year do you get 100,000 down in Wānaka?

DARIEN FENTON: Oh, that is all that matters. All that matters to the member Colin King is the money—the money. So that Government has become a Government that cares about money over everything else—over Christian views, over family values, over workers’ rights. And have we not seen that? Are we not seeing it in the policies that are coming through from this Government: tax cuts for the rich, and immigration laws that are for people with barrow-loads of money and forget about people who are not that well off? This is another bill that attacks working people. It attacks families and it has a go at the things that we hold dear in this country and at one of the few times that workers get to choose to spend time with their family. I mean, unfortunately, if this was—[Interruption] Colin King should show some more respect, thank you—unless he is planning to take a call, in which case I will give him heaps back. Unfortunately, there is nothing coming from this Government that is going to improve the lives of workers and families. If this bill gets any way through, if it, unfortunately, got through on its 11th try—its 11th try—

Dr Rajen Prasad: Why?

DARIEN FENTON: Why? I cannot believe that there are not more important things that we could be worrying about and that the member could be worrying about. For example, did that member know that there is a hotel in Wānaka that has just fired all its workers and employed replacement workers from China? Does that member know about that? Does that member even care about that? Is that not something she should be spending her time worrying about, instead of trying to take away 1 or 2 of the 3½ days that people do not have to go to work and, instead, can spend time with their families? People do not have to shop on those days. They can shop the day before, the day in the middle, and the day after. For goodness’ sake!

Maggie Barry: What? Do you live in the 1950s in your own mind? Things have changed.

DARIEN FENTON: Listen, “Queen Margaret”. Listen, “Queen Margaret”—3½ days a year! Do not be so arrogant. Who do you think you are—3½ days a year, and you are saying this is back to the 1950s? In the 1950s no one had to work on a Saturday or Sunday. Oh dear, oh dear! Are we not seeing it all tonight? Are we not seeing it all from those members? I hope no one votes for this bill. I hope it goes down—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There are two members who are interjecting on each other who do not have the floor, and that is not permitted.

DARIEN FENTON: I urge the House to vote against this bill again, as it has very sensibly done in the past. It is a conscience vote. This is a time when members get to have a say according to their conscience. There are a number of reasons, which the member has acknowledged, that people oppose this bill. They include Christian views, they include workers’ rights, and they include the very, very important issue that we all want to see people spending time with their families. At least one of those reasons must mean something to members like Maggie Barry, although maybe she comes from such a privileged background that she does not even understand. Please vote against this bill.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am pleased to support my colleague Jacqui Dean in the efforts to get this Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill to the Commerce Committee. I want to be very clear about my reasons for doing so and bring some perspective back to this particular bill. Jacqui Dean, as the hard-working member for Waitaki, is talking about this bill so that retailers in the Waitaki electorate—this is a small geographic area—are able to open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. As the member has stated, it will be amended so that it refers just to Easter Sunday.

The purpose of doing this is that this area is recognised as an area for tourism. In November 1989 an exemption to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 allowed retailers in Taupō to open on Sundays from 10 till 3 in recognition of it being an area of tourism activity. So I appreciate the arguments that have been put forward by the Labour member so far, but I want to just bring it back to remind the House that this bill is not suggesting this change for everyone, and it is not suggesting it for all in every area. It is a contained geographic area and one that has a specific function and purpose in terms of its appeal around tourism. As a very proud member representing a tourism-driven electorate, I do not believe we should deny those retailers the opportunity or choice, should they wish to trade on Easter Sunday for a period of 5 hours, to do so.

I just wish to remind the House that this is a constrained bill. It is a small area, the focus is tourism, and I would really like to encourage the members in the House to consider their conscience and allow this bill to be considered in a select committee from that perspective, given that it is a narrow and constrained area. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : Ni sa bula, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, for the third time today.

Chris Hipkins: It’s a record.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It is a record; thank you. Yes, it is a record. It is certainly a record on saying “Ni sa bula.” I do first want to say that I acknowledge and respect the sincerity of the member Jacqui Dean, who has brought this bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, to the House. I do that sincerely.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I can feel a “but” coming here.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: What is that, Mr Williamson?

Hon Maurice Williamson: I can feel a “but” coming here.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Yes, but maybe the member should listen because I did say it with sincerity, and I mean that with sincerity. The member represents the interests of the section of the public that she represents. But I take a very particular view to these provisions. I do not know why the National Government keeps on bringing these bills to the House and putting us through this angst.

Maggie Barry: Because we believe it’s right.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The chattering classes from the North Shore will soon learn to listen—learn to listen. You are a first-time member. Please listen. You might learn something. It is dangerous, but the member might, because there is another view. I would like the member to listen. [Interruption] I am not like this; I am like this. All right; that is good.

My colleague Darien Fenton has raised, very appropriately, the interests of workers. I do not want to do that, because I accept what the member has said. But I do want members of that party to think about what they have advocated for in this House ever since they came in here in 2008, and this was that they were pro-family—that they were pro-family. I say to Jacqui Dean that the one indicator of all of the research that actually makes sense of all the research about family well-being is the concept of time. I take it that Jacqui Dean has not studied that, because what our families are craving is just time to be together: time to spend together, to make decisions, to have meals together, etc. Over probably decades now, we have constantly and progressively eaten into family time in this society, so much so that we now have just a small window where families can plan with confidence that they will have the time to be together. I say this quite sincerely, Jacqui, because this is a matter that we did spend a lot of time on in the Families Commission and elsewhere, studying what contributes to family well-being. [Interruption] Todd McClay knows nothing about this, because Todd McClay was the last member who raised this type of bill in the House. He failed. Jacqui Dean has raised this before, and it failed. But somehow there is some madness in members like that who keep on bringing this to the House, so we go through this period of angst.

Families say that they just want time, and at the moment what is left? Is it about 3½ days? There are 361.5 days, or something like that, available to do everything that Jacqui Dean, Todd McClay, and members of the National Government who support this bill want to do. There is plenty of time. There are only 365 days in a normal non-leap year. Why is it so difficult for members of the Government to simply accept that it is OK to say to our families that you will have these 3 days that will be sacrosanct, that nobody will be able to interfere with them, that they will be reserved so that you, as a family, can do what you want to do? There are those who will engage in religious practices, there are those who will engage in absolutely quality family time, but somehow it is so difficult for members opposite to just get to that point. That, for me, is argument enough to say to leave our families alone. Leave our families with the one thing they yearn for, and this is time to have quality time that contributes to family well-being. Our families know that this is a fact, because all the research shows us that, but here we say that it is OK.

It is not about the commercial sector. The commercial sector has every other day of the year, except for 3, where it can ply its commercial trade. There are no restrictions on that. Why is that not enough? Why is that not enough for members opposite? Why is it so difficult for members opposite to simply accept that this is sacrosanct time for the family? I argue, almost singularly, on behalf of the families of New Zealand who have told me and many others, in many, many different ways, that this is for them. Why do we confound them? Why do we find it so difficult to accept it? Why is it that with monotonous regularity members of the National Government bring this issue to the House? Todd McClay has brought it, and this is Jacqui Dean’s second attempt at this. It has been through all of that, so why is it never enough? Why do we not just put this to rest and say, as a country, confidently, that our families deserve the time and we will enable them to have it. They have every other day of the year to do all of the shopping, to spend as much money as they want to. The argument about tourists is not that convincing, because many tourists also accept that there are cultures in the societies they visit that they have to respect, just as we respect and accept the cultures in the societies we visit. Thank you. For those reasons let us not support this bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I will begin by supporting the words of our colleague Dr Rajen Prasad, who has just resumed his seat. He covered some of the bases that I would otherwise have mentioned. So I will cut to the chase. We understand this is to be a personal vote, but I can speak with complete confidence on behalf of myself and all of my colleagues when we say we will be very happy to oppose this bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, as we have opposed, by our count, seven previous bills that have endeavoured to liberalise trading laws on Easter Sunday. Hopefully, this one will have as little success.

There are a number of reasons for that, and not least of all is that we are not a bit convinced that workers’ rights will be protected. My colleague Denise Roche will say more about that a bit later. I would stress again that for 361½ days of the year it is pretty much open slather for stores to trade, and in a leap year they get an extra day—362½ days. So 3½ days a year are reserved for family time, for non-trading time, to a large extent at least. We are talking about restricted days—Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Anzac Day morning, until 1 p.m.

The suggestion has been put that this is a very contained and a very localised proposition, particularly focusing on Wānaka. In answer to that I would say it is the thin end of the wedge argument. If we are going to allow Wānaka to trade on Easter Sundays, how long before Dunedin puts its hand up, or Clutha, or indeed Christchurch? And we sincerely hope that Christchurch will once again become a tourist Mecca, as it has been in the past.

I think it is useful to consider what is actually at stake here when we say there may be no trading, no opening, on these 3½ days of the year. It is interesting to look at the exemptions to that rule on the Department of Labour website. It is instructive to just look at who may open on these restricted trading days. We have been offered a vision of Wānaka—tumbleweeds blowing down the main street, frustrated tourists with pockets full of money, unable to spend it. What nonsense!

Let us start off with dairies—the good old-fashioned dairy—selling milk, papers, cat food, or whatever it is you happen to need to get you through that day, the usual bits and pieces, the newspapers of the day, all of those things. Takeaways, cafes, and restaurants may open on these days. Nobody will perish for want of food. They can sit in a place and eat and drink as you would on any other day of the year. Service stations are free to trade. We can fuel our cars. Again, service stations offer quite a range of food and magazines. You can buy a fan belt, a light bulb, or whatever it might happen to be you need to buy on that day.

Duty-free stores are allowed to open to service tourists, if they choose to, on any one of these days. Genuine tourists who are passing through on their way to an airport and want to pick up their duty-free are very welcome to do so. Service providers may offer a service on these days, providing they are not selling product, so video rental stores can open. Your local hairdresser can choose to open. Your local chiropodist or your sports masseur can choose to offer a service on any one of these days. There are abundant opportunities to spend your money if you so choose.

The list goes on. Real estate agents—you can even buy a house on any one of these days. Garden centres may open on Sunday and, of course, on Saturday. They have a day off on Friday. You shop for plants at the garden centre on Saturday and Sunday, and you plant them at your home on Monday. That does not seem onerous to me; I have done it personally many times. Any shops within a transport hub selling, again, food, drink, papers, magazines—the things that travellers want and need—are readily available on any of these days. Shops within bona fide markets, craft markets, may open on these days.

Souvenir stores in Wānaka may sell pounamu, merino, and leather products on any one of these days. They are genuine souvenirs. Give me a break when you tell me that there are people who cannot have an opportunity to spend their money in Wānaka on any one of these days. It is not the reality. Who wants these changes? It is the chain stores, the department stores, and the supermarkets—the sites that employ large numbers of employers. Most of these outlets that may open are owner-operated small to medium sized enterprises. If I owned a store, as I did for a number of years, I would have the choice as an owner-operator to open and provide goods or services to the public on most of these days.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First MPs have discussed and will oppose this particular bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, for two fundamental reasons. The first is that it is a piecemeal approach to this issue of shop trading hours on these particular holidays. The purpose of this bill is to allow the retailers within the districts covered by the Waitaki electorate to trade on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday, so it is specific to those areas, and that is a piecemeal approach, and that is really not good lawmaking. The second fundamental reason is that New Zealand First MPs believe that this uses an undemocratic process, and that there are better options for that. You see, these issues might be dealt with either on a nationwide basis through Parliament covering all of New Zealand, or locally by local government if empowered to do so. If it is done nationally, you will get consistency through the whole country, but you will not reflect local circumstances or attitudes. If it is done locally, you would get a piecemeal approach, and that is inconsistent with other areas but does allow for local circumstances to be taken notice of.

The attitude in large urban areas tends to be that because there is something of an exodus at Easter and Christmas for holiday purposes, there is a need to give all staff holidays on those days, because there is, after all, in those areas plenty of opportunity to shop on other days. The attitude tends to be different in smaller areas—smaller centres, rural areas, and holiday centres—where the circumstances are very different, because there is an influx of people and a need for access to all shopping needs even on those holidays. Local attitudes are to take economic advantage of this. So there is a significant difference in attitudes between these various areas.

Therefore, our conclusion is that there needs to be a horses for courses approach, not a nationwide one. But the method should not be for Government legislation on a piecemeal basis, as in this bill. Government should simply empower local people to decide shop opening hours for their holidays in their areas, taking account of their circumstances. But councils themselves should not make those decisions. New Zealand First believes that they should be required to either conduct a comprehensive consultation process or actually conduct a referendum, and that is the democratic approach.

Therefore, for those reasons, New Zealand First MPs could not support this particular bill. But New Zealand First MPs would support another bill to ensure that local government addresses this issue democratically, so that it takes account of local circumstances and gives everybody in the district a say—and that can be done only by referendum or by very wide consultation. And if local areas decide that in their circumstances for their reasons that they want these extended shopping hours on these holidays, then New Zealand First would support that. That would be different, as I have said, between urban areas, large urban centres, rural areas, and holiday centres. The circumstances are so different that a New Zealand - wide approach is not appropriate, but a democratic decision-making approach by referendum or by consultation is appropriate. So New Zealand First could not support this current bill for those reasons, but would support an alternative such as that I have explained.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, in the name of Jacqui Dean, the hard-working member of Parliament for the Waitaki electorate. I congratulate Ms Dean on working hard for her constituents and bringing this bill to the House, because, although there are differences of opinion on both sides of this Chamber—and I understand and respect that—Ms Dean works hard for her constituents, she listens to them as a local MP, and she is here today with this legislation at their request. Therefore it is important that we note that.

Her bill is, to some degree, similar to one I had in the House some time ago. It will offer some choice to local people: whether they want to work or not will be their choice, whether they want to open their shops or not will be their choice, and if they choose not to, equally, it will be their choice. I believe that this issue should be one of choice. I do also note that for many parts of the country there are some people who may just want to open their shops. We can have a debate about whether that is the appropriate thing to do on these days, but in so far as Wānaka is concerned, and certainly Rotorua—my home town, where we have thriving, busy tourist destinations and these Easter weekends are extremely busy—shopkeepers and others tell us that they wish they had this choice.

So I say to Ms Dean, if looks alone would have delivered this, we would be shopping in Wānaka this year. Sadly, it will take a vote of the House. But I do ask members to consider that this is a direct request of the people who live every day in Wānaka that this House give them the chance to consider this issue for themselves. I ask members to give Ms Dean and the people of Wānaka the opportunity to make their case to a select committee. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to speak to Jacqui Dean’s bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Taupō, Louise Upston, earlier. It was a respectful contribution, and respectful contributions will always be greeted respectfully. I do understand the issues that Louise Upston raised in respect of tourism areas, and they have been raised frequently in the context of the shop trading hours bills that have been put forward from time to time.

Jacqui Dean and I came into Parliament in the same year, and we served on the Commerce Committee for the first couple of years of our first term. This issue was raised not only by her but also by Steve Chadwick on behalf of the people in Rotorua as well. We tried, under the chairpersonship of Katherine Rich at that time, to make some sense of the legislation, because if anything is a dog’s breakfast in our legislative statutes, the shop trading hours legislation is a dog’s breakfast. As the Green member mentioned a moment ago, there are a range of things that are available, and a range of things that are not available, on any particular public holiday.

We struggled for some time on that select committee, in 2006 and 2007, to get some consistency. And one of the ways that we thought of getting some consistency, which members of Parliament could then, according to their own consciences, vote up or down, was by adding to the new schedule every single territorial authority in the country, so that every territorial authority could then decide whether it was in the interests of their people and their businesses whether or not they opened on public holidays. I thought that was quite an elegant solution, and it put it back to local authorities so that they could then determine how things would work best in their area.

But, unfortunately, this bill does not advance us anywhere with shop trading hours and the mishmash that it currently is. I want to give one example. I am familiar with the countryside that the member represents. I am not familiar with exactly the streets that the boundary goes down, but if I give the example of Nelson, the Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council sit side by side. In fact, they sit so side by side that their boundary is the middle of Champion Road. On the one side of Champion Road is Nelson City Council; on the other side of Champion Road is Tasman District Council. Is there anywhere in the member’s electorate where on one side of the electorate boundary part of the Central Otago District Council will have shops and businesses, and on the other side of the member’s electorate boundary the Central Otago District Council will have shops and businesses? On one side they will be allowed to open, and on the other side they will not.

So confining this to the boundary of the electorate, which is what the general policy statement at the front of the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill says, does not help the situation. It says: “The purpose of the Bill is to allow all retailers within districts covered by the Waitaki Electorate to trade on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.” I suspect—although I do not know for sure and I would be interested if the member would address this point—that there would be shops on different sides of roads that are separated by the electorate boundary. That is one of the difficulties that we face in trying to get some consistency in this area around shop trading.

There are all sorts of other objections, which my colleagues have raised also. Whether it is worker protections, family time, or religious observances, all of those are quite legitimate reasons for people to choose to vote for or against the bill. But I have to say to the member who has brought this bill to the House in good faith—trying to represent issues of concern within her electorate—that it does not help improve the dog’s breakfast that is the shop trading hours regulations and laws. It makes it a dog’s breakfast plus one. For that reason, and because I am inherently very pragmatic about these things, I will vote against it. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : I too want to acknowledge the bringing forward of this Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill by the member for Waitaki. I appreciate that it is an issue that the member is saying is confined to that particular area. However, this is the third or fourth time that such a bill has come before the House—

Dr Rajen Prasad: 10.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —10 at least—well, since I have been here. Although I have heard the member say that it is confined specifically to Waitaki, the problem that I have is that once it happens, then—

Hon Tau Henare: Only one problem?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —yes, only one bottle—the genie is then released.

I want to reflect to the member and the rest of the House the feeling that I have in terms of the community that I represent, Māngere, but also wider out in Manukau. I suspect there are other members here representing Manukau who will feel the same way. When similar bills came forward some years back, in 2007, those issues were heavily debated in Manukau City Council, when it did exist. By and large the feeling of that particular council, when it did exist, was that it had to set a limit around the interests of the commercial enterprises to try to balance that out with the interests of families in the workforce. So today the view of most trade unions that I have come across is that they still believe there should be sufficient time allocated for workers to spend with their families.

I recall when the late Sir Paul Callaghan spoke at a conference—I think it was a Labour Party conference not too far from here—and said to us that in terms of where this country ought to be moving, it is towards more high-value jobs, and tourism was probably the least of these valued jobs. Therefore—

Nikki Kaye: Do you support local bills, mate?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —we probably should be looking at countries in Europe that do not open on Easter Sunday—

Hon Member: Is Raj Prasad still talking?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —let me have my turn; you can have yours after—but are more wealthy economically than our country.

The big problem I have is that we are going down the slippery slope of where workers are being forced to work over and over and over again for less and less and less. I have to ask, is this not why we once upon a time had the 40-hour working week, and the overtime and the triple time, so that we confined the working environment to 8 hours a day, allowing for the worker to have 8 hours of rest and 8 hours of leisure—

Hon Tau Henare: Are you not worried about the people down in the South Island?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, this is the point. If any business cannot survive closing on Easter weekend or on Easter Sunday, it should not be in business, really. If any business cannot pay workers a decent wage, it should not be in business. That is the fact of the matter.

But I want to raise another issue that is even more important, from my electorate. We have Māngere, Mt Roskill, Manukau East, Manurewa—it could be classified as the Bible belt. There are many Catholics, as well as other religious communities, who hold very dearly to Easter being an important event where there is a requirement for them to come together in worship, but, more important, to spend time with family. I want to ask the member Peseta Lotu-Iiga where he stands on this, because he is constantly talking religious stuff out in the community. So is he going to be voting in favour of this, against what I am told by him he cherishes, or will he support this particular bill?

Although I appreciate it is a local issue that the member is trying to bring forward, once we open up that bottle there, where do we stop? Where do we stop, and who really benefits from this? I think, if anything, we should be collectively coming together and building a better New Zealand, where we are sharing the profits and where we are making sure that we are looking after families.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) : I rise to support the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. It is a very narrow bill. It is confined to Wānaka. Queenstown has these rules and regulations; why should Wānaka not? For those on the other side of the House who do not even know where it is, I would point out it is a tourism destination. Dr Prasad has taken sanctimony to a whole new level. We are—[Interruption] For list MPs, he does—for list MPs, who do not understand what it is like to actually serve an electorate and represent its interests. Jacqui Dean has actually done an excellent job. I agree with Ms Street that it is a dog’s breakfast.

This piece of legislation is an excellent amendment. I totally support it. It is a narrow bill. I think that Dr Prasad lives in a secular State of his own creation and is an extremely sanctimonious person. I completely disagree with him and, as a list MP, he should get a grip. I entirely support Jacqui Dean as she fights so hard for her electorate and for an excellent amendment. Thank you.

Jacqui Dean: Mr Speaker—

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought I was No. 10 on the speaking order and that Maggie Barry was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. When we look at the list, the Greens get one call and that call was taken by David Clendon at No. 5, so—

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Hang on, I am just dealing with this here. This is a first reading of a bill by a National member, and when we look at the schedule here, the Green Party had a call. It has one call in this debate and that was taken by David Clendon, so unfortunately the member—because the debate is now finished. We have had all the calls now and we just have the right of reply.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I checked this out with the Clerk at the Table as this debate began, because I am aware that this matter has traditionally been a conscience vote and members have indicated that it would be a conscience vote. The Clerk advised me that the speaking list for a conscience vote is a guide only, and, in fact, it is up to the Speaker to determine when the debate is done on a conscience vote. Although I understand you would use that as a guide, you are not bound by it in the way that you would be for a regular set-piece debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member says and I have done exactly that. I have taken how it has traditionally been done as a guide and the Green Party has had a call. The National Party had similar calls, as per the normal first reading speeches, and I have ruled accordingly. [Interruption] Is that a point of order?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appears in your ruling that you have ruled as if it was not a conscience vote—as if it was just ordinary first reading speeches.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The conscience vote will be determined once I have put the question. I will go through the process once we have had the member’s reply, and then I will explain the procedures. I know that some people want to treat this as a personal vote, but the process it will go through will be how it is normally done.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I am very proud to bring this Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Waitaki Easter Trading) Amendment Bill to the House. I am really proud to bring this bill to the House, because it is what the Wānaka retailers and the Wānaka community want me to do. It is what retailers, chambers of commerce, retailers’ associations, and citizens throughout New Zealand want me to do. I do follow on a grand tradition of members trying to bring some sense into this Parliament—colleagues like my friend Todd McClay, who previously brought a similar bill to this House—to drag us into the 21st century, because this bill is about growing the economy. This bill is about giving local economies, particularly in tourist towns, the opportunity to trade when they want to trade, and the opportunity for people to shop when they want to shop.

I do not subscribe to the notion put by the Opposition that there are poor workers in New Zealand. I do not subscribe to it. I do not subscribe to the notion that workers in New Zealand are so put upon that they are forced to work when they do not want to work. This is the 21st century. We have good holiday laws. We have good legislation to protect workers, and although this bill is silent on them, I invite members of the Opposition from throughout the House to support this bill’s referral to a select committee in order to have a decent discussion on this very point. If members opposite decline to do that, then I do not think they take this issue seriously.

This issue is about providing choice to New Zealand. This issue is about the economic viability of small towns in New Zealand like Wānaka, Cromwell, Geraldine, and Rotorua. This proposed legislation is about overcoming anomalies that already exist in the law, where up to 100,000 people will come into the Wakatipu Basin for the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show. They cannot shop in Wānaka. Where do they shop? They shop in Queenstown. Why do they shop in Queenstown? Because the law allows it.

There is one thing that the members opposite are right about, and it is that this area of law is a dog’s breakfast. This is my imperfect attempt to overcome this dog’s breakfast. I invite members opposite to open their eyes, open their minds, and send this bill to a select committee for consideration. I invite them to do so. I invite them to join us in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I regret that they will not. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members—[Interruption] Order! This is the process we are going to follow. I am going to put the question. I am going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. I know there are members who want a personal vote, and I am prepared to accept one, but this is the process that we follow.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A member is going to make his speech. I ask that members give him some courtesy. There is a lot of noise and a lot of movement.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) : I move, That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to a bill that was drawn on my first regular sitting day as a new MP, and I look forward to many more bills being drawn in my name before the year is out. This bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, corrects an anomaly that occurs roughly twice every 7 years. When this glitch happens, New Zealanders miss out on the usual full complement of 11 public holidays. All 11 public holidays are listed in the Holidays Act, but only two are missed out when it comes to ensuring a corresponding day off with the family. Those days are Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. Most years Waitangi Day and Anzac Day commemorations are deemed to warrant an additional day of rest and recreation, but, on the odd year, usually when they fall on the weekend, this is not the case. The commemoration occurs, but under current law no additional day of rest and recreation is granted.

The issue of missed public holidays came into sharp focus last year when hard-working Kiwis got only nine of their 11 public holidays. In 2010 both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fell on a weekend. Hard-working Kiwis were not happy. Before I proceed further I wish to place on record my thanks to the astute member Grant Robertson, who immediately set about drafting a bill that would correct this situation. It is that same bill that Grant Robertson drafted that I inherited when I arrived in this House, and it is this bill that I am proud to champion, because it is a good bill and because it is the right thing to do.

New Zealanders work amongst the longest hours in the OECD. This bill alone will not fix that, but it is a step in the right direction. Having 11 holidays guaranteed every year allows people to plan time together as a family, and employees up and down the country value every opportunity they can get to spend time with their families. Employers I have spoken to value this too, actually. They too want to be able to know with some certainty that their family members can plan to take days off that coincide with their own days off. Mondayising Waitangi Day and Anzac Day not only provides more time to spend with the kids and grandkids, but it gives these days the full recognition that other public holidays have. It recognises the growing significance of Anzac to our growing national sense of history and identity, and it makes forward planning simpler. Having carried responsibility for employing staff in the past, I know that employers make provision for public holidays. Under current law it is only in those odd years when these holidays fall out that employers have to adjust their provisions.

I want to thank members across the House for their indications of support for the first reading of this bill: honourable members Peter Dunne, Hone Harawira, the Māori Party, the Green Party, and of course my Labour colleagues. Further expressions of support will, of course, be welcomed at any time. One important thing to note early in the debate is that this initiative does not carry a huge cost. The Minister of Labour asked for estimates of costs from her department and it provided estimates that would suggest that this bill could cost 13c per worker per day. I want to challenge these figures that the Prime Minister relied upon in his initial public comment on this bill. I believe the Prime Minister has not been well served with this advice. I think this is an important point, because the Labour Party is a responsible party, and accepts that cost to employers is one factor that needs to be taken into account when deciding whether or not something like this is a good idea.

Information released to me under the Official Information Act shows that officials have focused on counting the costs of the legislative change without considering the offsetting benefits. Their calculations were incomplete, and it is very unfortunate that the Prime Minister was reliant upon them when he made his original cautious responses to my bill. To be fair to the Prime Minister, he did not rule out supporting the bill at that stage, but instead requested further information, and well he might. The calculations he relied upon fail to account for a range of ameliorating factors. Employment and hours worked by self-employed people, who are not even subject to the Holidays Act, are included in his calculations, and productivity gains from the benefits of having rested workers are not, and extra benefits from increased domestic tourism are not counted either. That is like counting the downsides of a mortgage without recognising the fact that you own a house. As well, no account has been taken in the 13c cost estimate of the fact that employers can make changes to the way they operate their businesses and who works on which days, further reducing costs. The Government papers I have seen also note more than once that the cost calculations provided are likely to be overstated. Furthermore, email traffic preceding official advice to the Minister acknowledges the likelihood of benefits to the economy but proposes investigating no further lest the results be ambiguous. Without wanting to cast doubt on the impartial advice provided by officials, this does seem a lot like cherry picking.

Given that the bill is plain common sense, I hope National members will take the time to work through the full calculation, and realise that even their 13c calculation is grossly overstated. The full calculation reveals that the cost is negligible. Even working with the estimate of 13c, employer’s advocate John Walley was forced to admit that he was being a Grinch in speaking against this bill. But we now know that 13 cents is an overstatement. It is even possible that once domestic tourism and the increased productivity of rested workers are properly taken into account this bill may have a net positive effect on our economy.

Regardless of all of that, National must not stand in the way of hard-working Kiwis’ entitlement to 11 statutory days off each and every year. I have been delighted with the general public’s overwhelmingly positive response to this bill. Every major newspaper and many regional newspapers in New Zealand have carried editorials welcoming the legislation.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Even the ODT.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Including the Otago Daily Times. I think we have established that the bill will be good for hard-working Kiwis and their families, and that there is not really a significant downside to this. But we may ask ourselves whether anything else will change when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are Mondayised. For starters, the day of celebration will not change. Waitangi Day will still be celebrated on 6 February each year, and Anzac Day will still be celebrated on 25 April. I have received much support since my bill was drawn, and also a few letters expressing concern that the day might be changed. I am very pleased to put on record that it will not. The proposition that is put forward in this bill is the same as that which operates in respect of Christmas and New Year’s Day. Christmas is still celebrated on 25 December each year, even when it falls on a weekend. The only difference is that Kiwis know that they can count on a holiday being added on after Boxing Day. Likewise, when New Year’s Day falls on a weekend, revellers do not hold off their celebrations. Instead, they count on a subsequent and additional day of recreation.

Australians do this already, and it works for them. Reports suggest they are observing a trend of growing attendances at dawn services. Like it is here, Anzac Day is also important to Australians’ sense of history and identity. Seven out of eight Australian jurisdictions Mondayise Anzac Day, and their equivalent of Waitangi Day, Australia Day, enjoys similar support. The Mondayisation of Anzac Day enjoys widespread support in Australia, because it honours the sacrifice of our forebears and the freedoms for which they fought. I note that the Government requested advice from officials on the prevalence of Mondayisation for holidays in Australia and the United Kingdom, and has been advised that public holidays are usually Mondayised in both jurisdictions. It is what we usually do here, and it makes sense.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : Thank you to the member opposite, Labour MP Mr David Clark, for bringing the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill before the House, and for his speech, which I think set out a lot of the arguments that would be for having the Mondayisation, in the sense that it has been proposed by this member’s bill. There is a lot of sympathy for the arguments that have been noted by that member. Many people in this Parliament will understand the importance of holidays to our people who are working in professions and jobs. A holiday is a very important part of their life and their ability to do their work.

However, when we look at this legislation, we need to be practical about its implications, and look at when it will actually be effective. The next time that both holidays fall on a weekend is 2021. So it is some number of years before the situation arises that has been considered in the past. If we look at Waitangi Day alone, 2016 is the next year when it will arise in that situation, and Anzac Day in 2015. So when we talk in regard to this bill, we are not talking about 11 paid holidays as such. We are talking about two days in 2021, and that is quite some distance away. I think, and the National Party believes, that we can do a lot to help our employees and workers in the meantime to assist them to have a stronger future in this country, and this bill at this stage is not integral to achieving that for those days.

The other argument around this bill is in regard to the significance of both Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. Both of those days are very important historically, culturally, and also for the spirit of our people and our country. The special significance of those days means that we would prefer to remember them and honour those days in their traditional format rather than see them Mondayised. There have been a number of quotes from Labour MPs over many years indicating also that they would not seek to have a Mondayisation of those days. But in essence the two real arguments that we face here are, firstly, the actual implications of this bill, which would be 2 days in 2021, 1 in 2016, and 1 in 2015, which means that there are other ways that we can achieve those better circumstances for our workers. Secondly, the very significance of those very important days means that National is unable to support this bill at this stage.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate my colleague Dr David Clark, who has made an excellent beginning to his time as an MP, and I think it augurs very well that this bill was drawn out of the ballot on his first full sitting day. I also want to acknowledge Grant Robertson, who drafted the bill when this issue became predominant in the media last year, when people realised that they were not going to get 11 statutory holidays last year and also that, actually, in Australia they do. It is very nice, also, to be debating this bill, which will actually provide some benefits to working people.

Hon Ruth Dyson: We could catch Australia.

DARIEN FENTON: We could catch up with Australia, actually—that is one way of catching up with Australia. We are missing out on everything else, but we could do this. That is a very good reason to vote for this bill.

But also a very good reason to vote for this bill is to provide rest and recreation for workers and families, and support communities and, actually, businesses, as we have heard in the arguments from Dr Clark. It is a very simple and fair proposition. It will happen only once every 7 years. Rather than being a reason to vote against it, as the National member who spoke said—and, may I say, I am very disappointed that the National Government is not supporting this; I am very disappointed in that—it is a reason to do something, because, after all, workers are not having such a great time under this Government. It would have been a gesture—just a little, tiny gesture—of kindness, particularly because National is not going to be in Government next time it comes around anyway. I would have thought that National members could be generous enough to support this—to have a look at it in the select committee, which is, after all, the process. Just because the bill goes through the first reading does not mean that it is finalised. It has to go to select committee.

I wanted to address the issue, also, that the member David Bennett raised about observing Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and the importance of doing that. I agree with that. We all on this side of the House absolutely agree that those are two very important days. We all have seen the rise in respect for observing Anzac Day among younger generations and older generations. Waitangi Day now has become a day when we all celebrate our nation’s history and the partnership that we have with Māori. But under this bill, that will not change. Nothing will change. Those days will still be observed: Anzac Day on 25 April and Waitangi Day on 6 February every year. They will still be observed. The only thing that will be different is where they fall on a Saturday or Sunday; they will still be observed on those days but instead of missing out on a statutory holiday like people do once every 7 years, they actually get to have a day off on the Monday. It works, as Dr Clark has pointed out, like it does with Christmas Day and some other public holidays like Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, etc.

Some time ago the Labour Government actually brought in provisions so that where people had to work on Christmas Day, where it fell on a Saturday or Sunday, they could actually have the day off on the Monday. It works in the same way. It actually means that people still get those holidays over Christmas and New Year, and under this bill they will get 11 holidays every year, which is what New Zealanders are guaranteed under our Holidays Act and have the right to expect. This bill is very fair. [Bell rung] This bill is very fair—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch; I have still got a minute.

Chris Hipkins: Yes, you have.

DARIEN FENTON: OK, I have still got a minute. Sorry about that.

Hon Members: She sat down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon Ruth Dyson: She’s allowed to sit down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Just in the future, if the member sits, that is the end of the speech. You have got 40 seconds left.

DARIEN FENTON: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, this is an extremely fair bill. I do not understand why National members cannot support it to the select—

Hon Annette King: Having a bad night over there.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes. I do not understand why National members cannot support it to the select committee. This would be something very positive that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee could be looking at for a change, instead of the dreadful things we have got ahead of us this year under this Government—the plans of all of the attacks on workers that it intends to bring to our select committee. Would it not be nice to be actually considering something positive, something good, something that is not going to cost very much at all, and something that will not happen for 7 years—when that party will be well out of Government?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I am happy to stand and speak in opposition to this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I am happy to stand and speak in opposition to this bill because the National Party knows that there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders out there who care very much about Waitangi Day and who care very much about Anzac Day. They care about the importance of those days to this nation. They do not see those days just as holidays. They see those days as being important days to recognise the people who have gone before in this country, to recognise the founders of this country who put together the Treaty of Waitangi to allow New Zealand to be the country that it is today, and to recognise the people who went to war for New Zealanders to have freedoms that we exercise every day in this nation. We as the National Party believe that that is the importance of those days. It is about recognising why we have those days, not viewing them just as holidays.

I think it is fair to say that we do have a very generous number of holidays in New Zealand. We have a generous number of holidays in New Zealand. Some people think that these two holidays, which we care so much about in this country, should be Mondayised, which would, one, come at quite a cost to the country whenever they come around, and, two, reduce the meaning of the days by treating them as just normal holidays. I think a bill that does that is a disgrace and should be opposed.

I want to talk a bit more about the cost there would be for the country should this bill go ahead. The Department of Labour has calculated that every time there is a holiday that is Mondayised there is an economic cost to the country of roughly $200 million. What we are hearing from members on the other side is that they do not care whether there is an extra $200 million worth of cost put on New Zealand businesses. We know that they do not support our economic growth programme. We know that they do not support our labour market reforms, which will actually create more jobs. We know that they did not support our 90-day trial, which created 13,000 new jobs. And one of the reasons why we are seeing more jobs being created is that we are seeing less cost put on to businesses. We are seeing less red tape. We are seeing less regulation being put on businesses. An extra $200 million is not to be laughed at—it is an extra $200 million cost to the economy.

This bill should be opposed for some very good reasons. We as New Zealanders care about Waitangi Day. We as New Zealanders believe that the people who went to war to give us freedoms in this country should be respected and not have their day trampled on by the Mondayisation that this bill would bring about. And we believe we should be keeping costs off businesses, and $200 million every time these days are Mondayised is $200 million too much. The National Party takes pride in opposing this bill, for the reasons I have outlined tonight.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : It is my pleasure to rise to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I find it quite ironic that we are having this bill before the House in the darkest time of the year and the time of Matariki—a time when it would be lovely to have more holidays, actually. That period from the Queen’s Birthday weekend in June until Labour Day weekend is one of the longest and the hardest roads that workers ever have to face, so it is quite a good idea to have this discussion about holidays and when we should have them. We fully support the Mondayisation of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. We have heard the arguments against it, and we fully support the ones for it that have come forward—from the Labour Party particularly—because it is about returning some family time to working families.

What we are seeing at the moment in New Zealand is a real attack on families. We are seeing it on low-paid workers, as well. We are seeing people working harder than they ever have before, just to make ends meet. We are hearing stories of service workers, union members, cleaners, caretakers, shopworkers, and security guards who are working 70 to 80 hours a week, just to pay their way. These workers are struggling to make ends meet—they really are. And these are the workers who are actually doing the jobs and working on Anzac Day and working on Waitangi Day, so they really should be given a day off when those days fall on a weekend, because otherwise they do not get to have them at all. And it goes for all of us, actually.

We are not going to have a situation where we cannot attend a dawn parade on 25 April. We are not going to have a situation where we cannot attend Waitangi celebrations on 6 February. That is not going to happen. Those days are sacrosanct. We still celebrate Christmas on 25 December, despite the fact that if it falls on a weekend we get the day off on the Monday or the Tuesday after Boxing Day. We get only 11 public holidays a year—11 public holidays a year—and workers get only 4 weeks’ paid leave per year. If you add that all up, that is not a lot of time that is given to workers to rest. And, as I said before, you will find many workers are actually struggling and working longer and longer hours and not resting.

We fully support the Service and Food Workers Union’s campaign for a living wage, and I am aware that some of my colleagues from the Labour side do as well. This is a call for more leeway: more ability for our citizens to participate in our communities, do their civic duties, and spend time with their families, and to not have to struggle so hard. Having a day off because the holidays fall on the weekend is not an unreasonable ask. We believe that it is not going to cost a lot. The next time it happens—and I think there have been speakers on both sides who have mentioned this—is not for years to come. The cost itself is reasonably minimal.

Michael Woodhouse: What—$200 million?

DENISE ROCHE: No, your figures are wrong. They are wrong, because you have taken into account a whole bunch of things that should not have been counted in there, including self-employed people.

We will be supporting this bill; we will support it tonight. We would hope that it will go to a select committee, because it will be great to hear from workers, and employers as well, how they think this will play out. We will hear from the RSA and Waitangi Day groups what they think about this bill. I am pretty sure they are going to say it is not a problem. We are going to support it because workers deserve a break.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I wish, on behalf of New Zealand First MPs, to make these five points, although given the time I probably will not be able to make all of them tonight.

First of all, when the tradition of celebrating Waitangi Day and Anzac Day by holiday was first begun, Saturdays and Sundays were much less days of work for people. These days, however, very large numbers of people do work on both Saturdays and Sundays, simply because they have to these days if they are going to make a living. Saturdays and Sundays for those people are not holidays, and they tend to be the same as any other day of the week. So when Anzac Day or Waitangi Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday these people get no holiday at all, because there is no Mondayisation of those holidays, as we know. This is quite simply unfair to people who always work on weekends, and that can be corrected only by having a substitute holiday on the following Monday.

I would have to say, having listened to speakers from the other side of the House, that National’s attitude to this issue is quite simply just mean—just mean. I believe National members should seriously reconsider this whole issue, because that is the way huge numbers of people in this country are going to see them for this particular attitude.

Secondly, there needs to be an opportunity for people who work on Saturdays and Sundays to actually observe Anzac Day and Waitangi Day on the following Monday in their own way. Obviously, if they have to work on a Saturday or Sunday, and Anzac Day or Waitangi Day falls on one of those days, then they have no opportunity at all in real terms to actually observe those very special days.

• Debate interrupted.