Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. When we get to the end of the debate we will be asking ourselves, in these words, “The question is that the motion be agreed to.” This is not an attack on unions. We have heard this through the first reading, the Committee stage, and then, in a roundabout fashion, talk from some of the staunchest unionists in the Labour Party. I have a great respect for those who go out of their way to help people and who stand up for other people, but in this debate this is about workers, employees, union members, non - union members, and full-time, part-time, and casual workers—you name it. It is about them. It is about their rights. This is not a debate about whether or not the union organisation is right or wrong. This is not a debate about whether the Labour Party, the National Party, New Zealand First, or the other parties in this House are right or wrong. This is a bill that states quite categorically that when strike action is to be taken, there must be a secret ballot. That is the least that we ask of our country when we go to the polls—voting by a secret ballot.

It is about choice. Choice is about making a decision without the sword hanging over the top of you—if it does. And nine times out of 10 there is no sword hanging over anybody. It is about that individual making that choice for him or herself. That is all. There is no conspiracy. There is no conspiracy against the union movement; there is no conspiracy against anybody in this bill. All it does is allow a couple of things: one is choice, and we have covered that; the other is freedom—freedom to choose without fear of somebody else putting the hard word on you. And that putting the hard word on you—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon TAU HENARE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not using the word “you” as in you. I am using the word “you” in the context of what I am saying. I think you need to listen carefully to the speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am listening carefully to the speech, Mr Henare, and I am just, if you like, trying to get the member to debate under the terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Hon TAU HENARE: It is about freedom. It is about walking into a place and deciding for yourself—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but for yourself. It is about making that decision, given all the information. Nobody has ever said in this debate that it is about the unions putting pressure on you. It is not actually about that. It is about the freedom of choice. Every employee, every worker—whether they be casual, full-time, part-time, contract workers, or whatever—should be accorded due respect, but we should also respect the employer and also the union organisers. At the end of the day, this is what we wish for every democratic society around the world. Is it too much to ask for? Is it too much to ask for that workers—employees—get the right, when they are asked to withdraw their labour, to do it in such a way that it is secret to them?

Su’a William Sio: Well, they’ve got to have a job first.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, OK. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from William Sio, the failed ex - Hillary College first XV half back. Actually, we did not have a first XV; we had a second XV, and he could not even make that. [Interruption] Yes, I was in the third XV, and I was very proud of it.

I have just returned from Uganda—

Kris Faafoi: What position did you play?

Hon TAU HENARE: In those days it was called flanker. I have just returned from Uganda and Egypt. No one would decry the folk from Egypt and Uganda of democracy, freedom, the right to choose, and the right to make a decision by themselves without fear of somebody standing over them with a sword, or even the inkling that somebody might be at the back with a sword. That is all.

So I say to members of this House that it is about the one thing we hold dear to ourselves, and that is freedom of choice—freedom to choose. We all hold that dear to our hearts, whether you are red, white, black, or green. I know that the folk in Egypt and Uganda have had to struggle hard to get just a whiff of freedom, struggle hard to get just the thought that they might be able to make a decision for themselves.

I want to say to my parliamentary colleague Andrew Little that his disparaging remarks about my wife and my wedding—

Hon Annette King: Put them into context.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yes, I will.

Hon Annette King: Read the whole quote.

Hon TAU HENARE: I certainly will. The bringing up of family and personal stuff in a debate that has nothing to do with it is shameful. I have got to say to Andrew Little that if he thinks he is going to be the leader of the Labour Party, he has got another think coming if he is going to act like that.

I do have a word for the organisers in the Talley’s dispute and also the owners of Talley’s themselves. It is time to get back to the table, boys and girls. It is time to stop this “I’m bigger and I’m stronger than you.”

Hon Annette King: Give them backing.

Hon TAU HENARE: Pardon?

Hon Annette King: Give them some backing.

Hon TAU HENARE: Give them some backing. At the end of the day—

Hon Annette King: Don’t sell out.

Hon TAU HENARE: Do not sell whom out? What are you talking about? What a load of rubbish. This is from the member who wants to be the Mayor of Wellington. She said: “Don’t sell out.” What? Does she not like the present mayor? Oh, that is right. She is going to retire very, very soon, and put her name in for the Mayor of Wellington. Why does she not just leave now and do us all a favour? Why does she not leave right now? She is done like a biscuit—she is done like a biscuit. She is, and she will go the same way as Cunliffe and Shearer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member is a longstanding member. He knows that he must use a member’s full name or their title.

Hon TAU HENARE: It is David Shearer and David Cunliffe. In winding up, this is about what everybody in the world wants, and that is freedom of choice. This is about democracy. If it is good enough for your nation to have a vote by secret ballot every 3 years in a general election, why is it not good enough to have a secret ballot when somebody is withdrawing their labour? It is the question you have to ask yourself. Why should we not expect the same rules and regulations and standards to apply when we are asking members of the workforce to withdraw their labour? That is a decision. I do not mind people withdrawing their labour. That is the one and only tool that a lot of people have, but it should be their choice. It should not be another person’s choice, and there certainly should not be any inkling of fear when you make that decision. So this is not an anti-union, anti-left, anti-labour bill. This is actually pro-worker. This is about democracy, and I am reminded of the words from Martin Luther King—

Darien Fenton: Oh no.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, we do not want to hear about Martin Luther King! He is only a person in a byline of history. What he said was: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : What a glorious finale to a long process of a bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, that was never needed. It is a bill that was never needed and a problem that never existed, except in the member Tau Henare’s mind, except in his experience of 30 years ago when he was a union organiser with the Clerical Workers Union, and except in his mind as to what things used to be like, when he was, in fact, the worst union organiser in New Zealand history. I doubt if he has been near a union since the time in the 1990s when he sold out and changed sides. Ever since then he has been standing up for the National Party, and the National Party’s attacks on workers. He has never voted against them. He has never spoken against them.

Here he is, saying this is a pro-worker, pro-union, freedom bill—freedom to choose. Well, I have got news for the member. Workers do have freedom of choice. They have freedom to join a union or not join a union. They have freedom to strike or not strike. They are not coerced. They are not marched out the door with their arms behind their backs and made to strike. They do have freedom.

They do have democracy, even though the member is trying to insert democracy into unions. It already exists. Most unions already have secret ballots. If he had bothered to read a few unions’ rules, he would see that most unions already have provisions that allow members to call for a secret ballot, and they do. It is not a problem. But what he has done is create a problem.

The unions will comply with this bill. They comply with the law, so of course they will. They will have to go through the expensive and unnecessary process and compliance cost of changing their rules. We had this discussion during the debate and during the select committee process. The unions cannot just get a piece of paper, change their rules, and send it off to the incorporated societies’ office. They actually have to go through a democratic process. They have to meet their members. They have to vote on the rule changes. This takes some time. In my old union we used to do something like 60 or 70 meetings all around New Zealand to change the rules. That is the process that is required, and that is the process that this bill will put the unions through at a time when there are far more important things to be worrying about.

The unions will do the job, but the people who will not cope are their members. The people who are not coping at the moment are union members—the members who are already struggling to get a decent pay increase and a fair deal at work. I was interested to hear the member Tau Henare give a message to Talley’s AFFCO—which was a little bit better than his Minister was prepared to do today. Talley’s AFFCO has actually locked out those workers. They are now in their third month of being locked out. I am sure those workers would have liked to see some democracy in action from Talley’s, with the board of Talley’s actually voting on whether those workers should be locked out. On the one hand the Government wants workers to have to vote for a strike, but shareholders do not have to. So, as always, in the employment relationship we have yet more imbalance.

It is the old view that workers should not have a voice. The view that we see increasingly from this Government is that workers should just shut up and be grateful to have a job. What is major and really upsetting at the moment is the most toxic industrial relations environment we have seen in two decades. I have mentioned the AFFCO workers. We have seen rest home workers having to go on strike—workers on $13.65 an hour. Those people are having to get out in the street, and the people they care for, the older residents they care for, go out with them. And, of course, we have the ongoing Ports of Auckland dispute, with some of the most incompetent management I have ever seen in my time being involved in industrial relations.

If Tau Henare had bothered to go and talk to any of the AFFCO workers on the picket line in Moerewa, in Wiri, in Horotiu, in Imlay, in Feilding, in Wairoa—in these poor communities—they would have said: “This isn’t an important thing for us. This doesn’t matter to us. What matters to us is that we can go back to work and earn a living, and be treated fairly at work.” But instead that is not going to happen.

I want to mention that this bill comes at a time when this Government is planning to bring in some new industrial laws. One—another ridiculous proposal—is to fine workers for partial strikes. A partial strike, for example, is the old work to rule. For example, workers could decide they are not going to answer the telephone during their meal breaks and rest breaks. I mean, that happens. They are often expected to do far more than they actually get paid for. What this Government is going to do is have this ridiculous process now where, first of all, the workers have to be balloted as to whether they are going to have a partial strike—in other words, refuse to answer the telephone. Then, under the Government’s proposal, the unions are going to have to give written notice of the strike. They do not have to give notice at the moment. They are going to have to give written notice, regardless of whether they are an essential industry or not. And that in itself can become the subject of an Employment Court or authority hearing—the notice, and whether it was right or wrong—as, indeed, the strike ballots can. The notice will have to provide the employer with all the details about how much time those workers spend answering the phone during their tea breaks, and the employer is going to have to calculate how much money that costs every day. They will have to identify that and notify the workers, and then they will have to work out what proportion of the workers’ day it is, so that they can cut the workers’ pay, because it is called a partial strike. And even if the workers are completing all of their hours, they can be paid less than the minimum wage under this proposal.

This proposal is so ridiculous. The Government is planning to change three pieces of legislation, all to stop another problem that does not exist, a problem like the one the member has tried to address—one that does not exist in the first place. This is a problem about so-called partial strikes. There have been five, on average, every year for the last 20 years. What we have got is a problem that does not exist. Someone has said to the Minister or to the Government “Oh, we had a bit of a problem, because they refused to answer the telephone and we couldn’t cut their pay.” So now we are going to spend a whole lot of time, a whole lot of Parliament’s time, bringing in a new provision that will further restrict the right to strike.

It has got nothing to do with democracy. It has got nothing to do with workers’ rights. It has got nothing to do with workers getting better pay and better wages. It has got nothing to do with catching up with Australia, or any of those other things that the Government has said it wants to do. It has got nothing to do with democracy, because, as I said, if it was about democracy, the member would have accepted my amendment to require shareholders to hold a ballot where there is a lockout. He would have accepted my amendment—my very sensible amendment—that instead of having a whole bill, we just have a requirement that the unions have a provision in their rules. That would have stopped this stupid bill for an unnecessary problem.

What this bill is really about is reducing unionism and collective bargaining in New Zealand. That is the agenda of this Government. That is the agenda of this Government—

Hon Tau Henare: Nobody believes it!

DARIEN FENTON: That is your manifesto. Why does the member not read his manifesto and see what his Government is planning to do?

I am afraid that even if Tau Henare had gone and visited the Talley’s AFFCO workers, I doubt he would have listened. What is happening to them is indefensible, just like this bill—this is not defensible. It is going to make life tougher for unions and workers. When you combine it with the Government’s plans to weaken collective bargaining, to weaken the unions, and to cut people’s pay, it is going to be a disaster.

Hon Tau Henare: Rubbish! Nothing to do with it.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, I encourage the member to please go and see the Talley’s AFFCO workers. You will find that what they are concerned about is feeding their families. It is poor communities and poor workers who are supporting them at the moment. Their families are living on $30 a week. Guess who is providing the money? It is other workers, who—

Hon Tau Henare: What are the meatworkers doing, then?

DARIEN FENTON: The meatworkers union members are providing the money. The Council of Trade Unions and the officials are providing the money, as well. So instead of arguing, go and talk to some real workers, Mr Tau Henare, and find out what the real life of workers and unions is all about today.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The last speech from the Hon Tau Henare finished with a quote from Martin Luther King and I just want to give a few more quotes from Martin Luther King that will assist the members of this House. Martin Luther King Jnr said: “A right delayed is a right denied.” Martin Luther King Jnr said: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Following on from the good work of Tau Henare, I think one of the quotes from Martin Luther King Jnr that actually relates to Mr Tau Henare and is also important is: “I am not interested in power for power’s sake, but I’m interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good.” It is the member Mr Tau Henare who is leading the charge by putting up a good bill that is in the interests of workers, that is in the interests of the New Zealand public, and I think we should congratulate him on bringing this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill forward to the House to its third reading and look forward to it passing through the House today.

This is good for workers, it is good for New Zealanders, and the Labour Party members should be supporting it. The Labour members on the other side say that workers have freedom of choice, that they are not coerced. I am sure that they have freedom of choice when it comes to political donations and all other things that unions engage in. There is no freedom of choice. The union is there as a mechanism to uphold and represent workers. That is good in many ways, but it also needs to have a degree of individuality and a degree of anonymity—I guess—in making some of the decisions, so that the workers feel that they have the freedom to stand and make the decision that they believe in, rather than the decision that they are told they should believe in. That is the fundamental difference, I think, between the Labour Party and the National Party. The National Party lets people believe in things, wants them to believe in things, and gives them the opportunity to show that they believe in things. On the other side of the equation you have the Labour Party, with their colleagues in New Zealand First, who do not want to let people believe in things, who do not want to give people freedom of choice, who do not want to give people the ability to stand up for their own opinions, but want to have them coerced, to be represented by one group, and to be led and to be told what they should do. That is the difference in this debating chamber. That is the difference that this bill represents. This is good legislation, because it represents the fundamental values that the National Party stands for, and the fundamental values that this House should stand for.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You remind me of Heydrich.

DAVID BENNETT: And what are we getting from the New Zealand First Party? There is a lot of calling out and bickering over there. I want to see those members being constructive in this House and voting for good legislation, so that the New Zealand First Party actually represents the views of the public, not the views of the Labour Party. When it comes to the Labour Party, its members are very good to tell everybody what they should think, and they love unions to be able to tell everybody what they should think, but when it comes to giving people individual rights, the ability to think by themselves, or the ability to even act by themselves—which would be even worse than thinking by themselves—that is not allowed. This bill goes to the heart of the problem with the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party. They do not give people the ability to be the individuals that they need to be. This bill is good for human beings in this country. It is good for our workers, and I commend it to this House.

I just want to pay especial credit to the leader of this bill, the person who has brought it forward, the Hon Tau Henare. He has a strong background within the union movement and he has a strong background within the political movements of this country, and he has seen a gap that is out there. He has seen an issue that needs to be addressed and he has dealt with it in this manner through the House. It is very good to be on the committee that Tau was a member of last year, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where we had submissions on this bill. During that time his work was very constructive in getting this bill to the stage it is at today. The Labour Party also had a few members on that committee. They tried to stop it and to be disruptive to that process, but, in the end, we found that common sense prevailed and that everybody got the result we needed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Come on, Heydrich, make it more interesting.

DAVID BENNETT: So the New Zealand First Party wants it more interesting, is that right? Maybe we could sing it for you. Would that make it more interesting? We look forward to the New Zealand First Party standing up in front of this House. I know what those members are going to do. They are going to come in here and they are going to say everything that you want to hear, but then they will vote against it. They will say they believe in individual rights, but then they will still vote with the Labour Party.

When it comes to this bill, there were some changes made at the select committee. I think those changes are very important. The select committee listened to the suggestions that were put forward, and it looked at what the opportunities were to make this bill the best legislation it could possibly be. There have been a number of changes. They go to the requirement for unions to hold a secret ballot before a strike. There were changes with new section 82A, in clause 7, to clarify the intent of the bill and set out the process relating to the requirement for a union to hold a secret ballot. That is important, and was one of the things that the select committee came to a conclusion on that helped make this bill better. There was a new clause 8, which was put in in regard to having a strike taking place in breach of proposed new section 82A, and whether that is going to be unlawful or lawful. The determination of that was an important part of what the select committee was working on through that process.

The select committee looked at the title of the bill, as well. When we look at the title Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Act, its context is something that does not define it as being anti-worker or anything like that that the Labour Party may try to portray. This is about giving the ability to workers to have freedom of choice and to express their freedom of choice in a secret manner, and, as the promoter of the bill, the Hon Tau Henare, said, it is good enough for us to have elections every 3 years in secret ballots, where everybody has that choice, but it is not good enough for union members to have that when they want to vote.

It is very sad that the Opposition takes that approach. There are two standards: one in regard to what those members want to see happen in regard to their own positions, and one in regard to what they want to see happen in regard to ordinary New Zealanders, who are working hard to make the best of their endeavours that they are undertaking.

The Labour Party talked about how they wanted to see shareholders make similar decisions. Well, it is not really up to shareholders to make such decisions, because there is a fundamental difference in a company between management and governance. Management decisions are made by the management of the company, whereas in the case of a union it is the individuals who are the ones who are striking; the workers are the ones striking, so it is only fair and relevant that they have that ability to vote on it. It should not be left to their union representative to make that choice for them, because it is fundamental to their workplace and their desire. The difference between shareholders and companies against unions and union advocates is quite distinct and quite different. The argument put forward by the Labour Party that they are the same is just not the case.

Phil Twyford: OK, so make the board of directors vote, then.

DAVID BENNETT: So we will have the board of directors vote. That suggestion came from Phil Twyford. I just want to mention to him the difference between management and governance: the board of directors provides governance. Phil Twyford obviously does not understand that. It is a management decision, Phil; the board of directors is not the management of a company. The board of directors appoints the management, which is the CEO. It is good that Phil made that comment. It is always good when Phil makes a comment in the House, because then we can correct him and just let him know how things go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member should know now that he cannot refer to a member by his Christian name. It must be the full name.

DAVID BENNETT: That was Mr Phil Twyford. I am not sure what seat he represents, but he is in this House trying to make comments about governance and management, and they simply do not stack up. This bill is good for our workers. I would like to thank the Hon Tau Henare for putting it forward, and we look forward to seeing the New Zealand First Party voting with the Government this time, on this bill.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : That last contribution by David Bennett could be best summed up as, really, a waste of time—time-wasting. The public listening to that would have made up their minds that that was a lot of time-wasting. I want to say to Mr Tau Henare that I genuinely was listening to his arguments on this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, and I want him to know that he needs to remember his roots. I ask him to remember his roots, I ask him to remember where he came from, I ask him to remember the unions that he worked for, and, as he sits next to Mr Key and Mr John Banks on that other side, I hope that he does remember his background and the people who supported him to the place where he now sits.

If I accept the argument that Mr Henare made that this bill is not about attacking the unions, then you have to ask yourself why we are spending time debating this particular bill. Why are we spending time debating a bill that simply endorses what is already the common practice of organisations out in the workplace? Why are we doing that? That will be the question that serious people listening to this debate need to ask Mr Henare, because there is no evidence, as I understand from the reports of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, to show that there is anything wrong in the workplace in terms of how unions conduct their secret ballots. There is no evidence of anybody complaining about these sorts of situations. I have to say that we have to ask why we are spending time on this particular bill, which people might describe as being frivolous. Why is that?

I would put it to you that there will be a lot of people thinking that this Government has run out of ideas. Only last week the household labour force survey was released and we saw figures: 160,000 people unemployed—6.7 percent. That is 55,000 additional people unemployed since December 2008. We now have a situation where we have not only thousands of people underemployed but also 160,000 unemployed, and then we have got another several thousand people jobless. I think that is the issue Mr Tau Henare should be emphasising, or should have brought forward, rather than debating something that already exists out in the workplace. I would say the debate should have been about jobs, but that is not what we are hearing from this Government. What we are hearing about, though, is more Draconian labour laws, Skycity pokie machines, and more mining of our environment. All that gives us is more gambling, more environmental disasters, and lower and lower wages.

I heard somebody earlier say there were plenty of jobs available. That might be right. You might see those jobs, but you have to ask whether those jobs fit the skills of the 160,000 people who are unemployed. Do those jobs fit the thousands who are underemployed, working part-time, who are wanting more hours? The answer is no and this Government is sitting idly by, not doing a single thing about it. We heard earlier today that 1,000 people are going to Australia every week—every week. What plans does this Government have in order to make sure that we are keeping our best brains here in Aotearoa New Zealand? This bill reflects the lack of any new ideas. This bill reflects the lack of any serious undertaking by this Government to address the real issues that thousands of New Zealanders are facing at the moment. They want jobs. There are not enough jobs available. Our young people do not have sufficient skills, education, and training to match the jobs that are available. We have qualified people who cannot find full-time work, and if they are finding jobs, normally the jobs would be part-time and these people would be overqualified and underpaid for many of those particular jobs.

Look, if this was serious—we had 12 people make submissions, five presented themselves to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—National should have taken into consideration the Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward. If National wants freedom for the workplace, if it wants freedom for workers, then let us talk about democracy in the workplace. Let us talk, because that is what it should have been about—democracy in the workplace. Hey, we see in this bill that National is prepared to force workers by law to take a secret ballot—something that many unions are already doing—but National is not prepared to compel boards of directors and the shareholders of these companies to take into consideration the impact and effect on families when they lock out workers. We saw that in Auckland, with the Ports of Auckland. We saw the impact that had on families. We are also seeing it now with AFFCO. When companies lock out workers, it is OK for them to do that without any legal obligation for them to take a vote on that.

So what is the bill really all about? That is what I am asking Mr Tau Henare. I think that when you hear the contribution by Mr David Bennett earlier—a lot of time-wasting; it was frivolous—this is not the kind of legislation that we should be debating. We should be debating serious legislation on the right track for this country, so that people do have jobs and do have incomes that can sustain their families, and so that our young people, the next generation coming through, have opportunities for education and training, and have equal access to them, rather than what we are seeing now—things becoming tougher and tougher, and harder for many, many families. The Government could start by simply stopping sacking public sector workers. In the Pacific community many public sector workers are supporting large families. Many of them have been impacted by this Government’s austerity measures and the wholesale cuts across the board to Government departments, with people now on the unemployment roll, and you have to ask how this bill is going to support those communities, those people without jobs. It does not—it really does not.

Members opposite laugh and think it is fun to poke fun at the public when the public are asking where the jobs are. On Saturday I and the Hon Phil Goff attended an event by the Migrant Action Trust out in Onehunga. A couple of hundred people from both the ethnic Pacific and the Māori community attended that, and the message that came from that community, who are struggling under the economic austerity measures of this Government, is that they want to work—but where are the jobs? If they do find work it is usually part-time and people are unable to support their families on the wages from those jobs. I would say that that message is not confined to just Pacific or Māori or ethnic communities. That message is now felt by people across this country of ours, just because this Government is not doing anything to address the real issues and the real problems that our communities are feeling.

Mr Henare, I did take seriously the argument you put forward, that this bill was not an attack on trade unions, but when you line it all up with everything else your Government has done—Draconian legislation such as the 90-day bill, under the guise that it will somehow create jobs, there have been none. Mr Bennett might shake his head, but go out there and talk to the people, Mr Bennett. There are no jobs. All we are hearing about is more pokie machines, more drilling, more mining, lower wages, and fewer and fewer jobs. That is not a recipe for success. That is not a recipe that New Zealanders want in this country, and that is why, today, David Shearer said that thousands are leaving the shores of Aotearoa New Zealand. They would not leave if there were job opportunities for them. They were not leave if our salaries were not falling downhill. They would not leave if that was not happening. So the member’s speech was very, very frivolous and a waste of time. I think that the public listening to the debate on Mr Henare’s legislation will make up their own minds. I would ask Mr Henare to withdraw his bill, and let us talk about something really, really serious.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : The Green Party will be voting against this bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. We will not be voting for this bill because we do not see the need to meddle with stuff when there is no reason to meddle with it. This bill is a solution looking for a problem, as others have said before me. There is no problem, so I cannot see why we are dealing with this time-wasting bill and why it is being passed.

In the last few months there have been three main industrial disputes. One has been around rest home workers, care assistants, nurses, cleaners, and cooks, who between them care for the most vulnerable and frail seniors in our communities. The work is hard. It is demanding, both physically and emotionally. At Oceania rest homes across the country, some of those workers have been paid as little as $13.61 an hour. That is just 11c above the minimum wage. Today comes the news that the Human Rights Commission is looking at these workers’ pay and saying that they may be discriminated against because they are underpaid and their work is undervalued. Over the last few months, these workers, members of the Service and Food Workers Union, and members of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation have been attempting to negotiate a decent rate of pay, and they have had several quite short strikes to shoot home the message. Each time there has been a strike—and it takes a lot to get rest home workers, caregivers, and nurses to go on strike—those union members have had a vote, and each time it has been a secret ballot.

When the Ports of Auckland Maritime Union members went on strike when their negotiations over their collective employment agreement broke down over the ports’ unreasonable demands about casualising the workforce, they had a vote to decide whether they would take action. Each time that they have elected to strike, they have had a vote. Each time, it was a secret ballot. By contrast, these workers have been locked out several times, and they have been locked out illegally, as well. They have been through mediation and facilitated bargaining, and they have a court case pending regarding some of the employer’s unspeakable tactics to cow the workers into submitting to casualised employment, including the threat of losing their jobs altogether by being locked out. At no time was the Ports of Auckland board of directors required by law to first hold a secret ballot when it decided to lock out those workers and when it decided to take its own industrial action against the Maritime Union members.

Currently, we have the New Zealand Meat and Related Trades Workers Union members who work for the Talley’s AFFCO - owned meat processing plants in small towns right across New Zealand who have been in the throes of a particularly nasty dispute with Talley’s since Talley’s locked out 700 of its 2,100 staff on 29 February after only 10 hours of negotiations around their employment contracts. The Meat and Related Trades Workers Union has a longstanding core collective employment agreement with AFFCO. Alongside this, there are site-based agreements that provide for things like daily production levels, work speeds, staffing levels, pay rates, start times and finish times, and shift patterns. Core pay rates range from only $13.48, below the minimum wage, to $15.76 per hour and, on top of that, workers are paid a rate based on the numbers of animals killed each day. The work is not secure; it is seasonal—2 to 11 months per year, with many short days and short weeks, even during the season. Seniority—the “last on, first off” principle—is enshrined in the collective employment agreement, and helps ensure some kind of job security for the workers who live in these small communities.

Talley’s behaviour since it took 100 percent ownership of AFFCO has been, quite simply, appalling. The company has bullied workers into processing more lambs per minute, without consulting them. It has chosen not to consult on staffing levels, length of the working day, wages, productivity payments, and penal rates, and it has taken to re-employing inexperienced workers on individual employment agreements while not re-employing experienced workers who just happen to be union members. Many inexperienced workers end up getting hurt and leaving the industry.

Like Ports of Auckland, Talley’s has actively set about to bust the union. Managers have offered meatworkers a 3 percent pay increase, a $1,000 attendance allowance, better jobs, and more training if they leave the union. Workers have been taken aside for one-to-one meetings, where they have been told to adapt to new work practices or be replaced. Understandably, many workers have felt compelled to accept individual agreements and leave the union as a way of trying to appease the boss. And while this has been going on, Talley’s management has undertaken a strategy to lock out some of those members some of the time while expecting other union members to carry on working. This classic divide and rule tactic has unleashed exceptional hardship to over 5,000 children of the union members who have been unable to work because they have either been locked out or been on strike to support their colleagues.

Since the first lockout, AFFCO workers have taken five separate 1-day strikes, one separate 2-day strike, and, more recently, two 5-day strikes. Striking workers are ineligible for Work and Income support. They are suffering, and their families are suffering. Each and every time they have taken strike action, there has been a secret ballot. We do not know what, if any, process or procedure the Talley family went through to make its decision to take its industrial action against these workers. This bill is not even-handed. It does not even address that issue. This bill is not needed. Secret ballots already occur.

As the Employers and Manufacturers Association stated in its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: “The Employment Relations Act requires a union to have rules that are democratic (Section 14(1)(c)(ii)). It also states a unions’ role is to promote their members collective employment interests (Section 12(a)).” Modern unions are democratic. They have to be, not only because of the Employment Relations Act but also because with voluntary unionism they will lose members or not attract members if they are autocratic or lacking in accountability and transparency. Votes around strike action are at the very heart of that democratic practice. Unions or union officials do not try to impose strike action on union members. This is a decision made by members, and it is never made lightly, because to take strike action means to lose pay, and there are very few workers who can afford to do that.

Not only is this bill unnecessary but it is also meddlesome. One of the aims of the Employment Relations Act, in section 3, is around reducing the need for judicial intervention. Unions are incorporated societies. We believe that this bill intrudes on the functioning of voluntary associations far more than is necessary. It is an undemocratic Act.

We oppose this bill because it goes against all good international practice. In fact, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation in its submission went so far as to say: “By implication, this bill contravenes fundamental rights of workers protected under the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social And Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Articles 6, 7, and 8, to which Aotearoa is a signatory.”

Finally, we are concerned that this bill, if it becomes law, will allow unscrupulous employers—and there are some, like Talley’s—to frustrate union members’ industrial action by taking legal challenges. As union members from the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union or the Ports of Auckland can tell you, there is quite a delay in getting your case heard in the Employment Court. This bill is anti-union, it is anti-worker, and, above all, it is anti-democratic. I urge you to vote against it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : This bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, really does warrant intelligent debate in the House, and certainly we will have intelligent speeches from this side of the House. I hope we will hear some from members on the other side of the House, and one of the things that they might like to include in their speeches is an answer to why not. Where is the problem? But we will come back to that.

One of the difficulties that bedevil any discussion on trade unionism, on industrial relations, is the stereotypes that exist in so many people’s minds. Some of us—and I know I am not the only one—can go back quite a long way in our memories and in our experience of industrial relations. One of the first introductions I had to it was a film called I’m All Right Jack, which was a delightful romp through the industrial relations of postwar UK. Some saw it as an attack on trade unions; they really did. It showed an attack on the shop steward, brilliantly played by Peter Sellers, and an attack on the obsessive aspects of unionism at the time. The reality of the film—

Andrew Little: Not in Scotland now.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE:—was a point missed by so many, but I am sure Andrew Little got it, because, gosh, he got right up trade unionists’ noses. The point of the film was that it was stereotypical of all the ingredients of industrial relations, not just unions—not just.

Was it fair? Well, I can recall stereotypical behaviour at times of industrial stress. I remember a radio programme interview between a wharf unionist in Timaru and a sociologist. When the sociologist was complaining of a lack of democracy in the way union decisions were reached, it was disputed by the trade union official. The sociologist said: “But I was there. I was a student, working here, and you called for a vote and you said: “Scabs and blacklegs”—sorry, correction. The unionist called for a vote, saying: “Scabs and blacklegs over there. Brothers and comrades over here.” He said that was not a fair, unbiased way to call for a decision. There are equal expressions, and I can rate them, on the other side, particularly my experience in rural employment where even answering back an employer was enough—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about in New Zealand?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: This was in New Zealand. It was enough to get you told “Down the road.” That is a dreadful situation, where your position can be treated as lightly as that. It is ghastly stuff. In fact, I find myself, with something of a surprise, agreeing with Trevor Mallard when he said that New Zealand does not have a bad track record of union strikes. I remember the Zanetti report in 1974, when he told the Ruakura conference that New Zealand had a pretty good run with unions and had a particularly good representative in the late Sir Tom Skinner, who did not do a bad job.

As an exporter we were always grateful to the unionists who gave us early warning that wharf strikes were going to come along, so that we could get our containers on the boat and away. And they did that regularly. We had a good relationship with them. There have been times of industrial stress over the decades. I recall that the unlimited immigration from the UK brought a whole new flavour to unionism in New Zealand. Every union representative whom you heard speaking had an English accent, it seemed. Those were the days—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And this member is talking!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is right. Those were the days—you will remember them, Trevor—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Sorry. The Hon Trevor Mallard will remember the “Punch-a-Pom-a-Day” campaign, or the days when the Hon Norm Kirk said: “Kiwis”—what did he say—“Kiwis have had a gutsful of trade unions.” Is that what he said? I think that is what Norm Kirk said when he was Prime Minister. I think the late Sir Tom Skinner then said to the newspaper and media reporters: “Go and ask the Prime Minister again, and I think you’ll find he’s changed his mind.” That man had power. I think those days have sensibly gone. But I agree with the Hon Tau Henare that this bill will, in fact, be of assistance to thinking trade unions. It will be of assistance to them, in that it will make difficult any criticism that they are not conducting themselves in a truly democratic manner and are supporting their members.

I am very pleased to support my colleague the Hon Tau Henare. I congratulate him on this fine bill and its noble intent, because the intent is very straightforward. It is consistent with this Government’s commitment to creating positive work environments for all workers, and a platform for workers to speak their minds, regardless of the opinions that they hold. This bill codifies best practice. It is a basic clarification, but one that ensures best practice on the part of all—the kind that quality unions probably already prescribe to voluntarily and quality unions are glad to do so. But not all of them. Not all unions allow their members the freedom to have their own opinion. I note that if it was not for the—just to get the name right—Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Act 2011, which this Government very proudly supported, which the Labour Party disgracefully tried to filibuster—

Moana Mackey: Rubbish!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —which the Labour Party disgracefully tried to filibuster—then members of particular unions within this country would have had only a limited ability not to have joined a union, had they not wished to.

I recall the Hon Shane Jones voiced support for the intent of the bill, but followed the party line and was not allowed to vote with his heart. Workers covered under this bill will have no such problems. In the case of voluntary student unionism, as in this case and in many others, the National Government and its supporting parties have been the only ones ensuring the freedom to respectfully dissent is codified, rather than assumed.

As I said, this bill is straightforward but important. It will alleviate concerns regarding whether a proposed strike action has the support of those who will bear the brunt of its effect. I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to do. Again, I ask the question—[Interruption] Let us ask the vociferous member, Andrew Little, what the problem is. I ask him once more what the problem is. He has not been able to reply. We heard from the Hon Tau Henare and from my esteemed colleague David Bennett that the bill is not an attack on unions. I do not think it is an attack on unions. It is a safety net that enhances the process that many unions already have in place.

My colleagues have quoted a great man whose legacy shaped the world, and, instead, I would like to switch back to the quote from the Hon Trevor Mallard, during the second reading on this bill. He said: “… strikes are relatively rare in New Zealand compared with most countries, and, actually, most employers are satisfied with the ballots that occur.” This bill ensures not just that employers and union bosses are satisfied but also that workers, communities, who are without vital service or a much-needed cash-flow are also there of their own volition. The workers who do not support the whims of handsomely paid union leaders, and who need the protection that a secret ballot gives to ensure that they can voice their opinion free of judgment from anyone else, will benefit from this bill.

The bill will provide a protection mechanism for workers who may feel intimidated—and people would feel intimidated—through the voting process, and put workers in a position where they know they can, and will, be heard. The bill supports a transparent democratic process, and this Government supports those workers. Where, again, is the problem?

I would just like to close by mentioning the, I thought, somewhat unfair criticism made by Darien Fenton, normally a very balanced speaker, I would like to suggest. She criticised my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for taking a principled stand. I thought that was out of character for her. The abuse she gave is typical of the type thrown at those whom this bill intends to protect, and they are the people who dare to have hearts and minds and are not in step with the well-heeled union drum—the Labour Party drum. They are the people who speak out, whether in this Chamber or in a union meeting. I support my colleague and I support this bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next speaker, I wish to advise the House that New Zealand First will split its call between the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the honourable member Brendon Horan—Standing Order 118(2).

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : Tau Henare was an organiser for the Clerical Workers Union. He marched against the Employment Contracts Act. He voted against the Employment Contracts Act because of his strong, pro-union convictions, yet today he walked in here, quoted Luther, and spoke like Lucifer. This is a man in a most sad circumstance, because this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is not a Government bill; this is a member’s bill. This bespeaks someone who is being used. This bespeaks someone who has been purchased off. This is a man who is happy to sell his soul for a few pieces of silver, or promotion. He was against all these things, and this is a member’s bill.

Strike action must be preceded by a secret ballot, and he said that one thing we hold dear is freedom to choose. That is what Tau Henare said. Well, did the Ports of Auckland’s real owners have the freedom to choose recently on the lockout? No. Where is the fairness between both sides in this legislation? Where is the balance? There is no balance at all. You have someone who is prepared to come along and put his name to a member’s bill. You know, I can remember way back the song “Part of the Union”. It went like this:

Now I’m a union man

Amazed at what I am

I say what I think, that the company stinks …

With a hell of a shout, it’s ‘Out brothers, out!’

But with Mr Henare it is: “With a hell of a shout, I sell out.” That is what is happening here: “I sell out.”

It is not, as Mr Sio said, too late to withdraw this bill. But when I saw Mr Henare today it reminded me of that classic and most sad, historic, and biblical event. When St Peter is asked whether he knows Jesus, the Bible says “and the cock crowed three times, and he knew him not.” And all the workers and all the unionists whom Tau Henare used to work for in the old days when he had character and integrity, when they came to him and said to him: “Are you going to act for us?”, he knew them not.

You know, Mr Henare, one of these days one of your grandchildren is going to ask you: “Grandad, when they came for the ordinary people, when they came for the worker, when they came for us, what, as a member of Parliament, did you do?”. That is what that grandchild will ask. If he withdraws this bill, he will not have to splutter and cough and make out he cannot hear the grandchild. Oh, no, he will be able to look that child in the eye and say “When they came for people like you and me, I stood up for the ordinary people. I stood up for ordinary New Zealanders, the people whom, with my background, I knew I should respond to.” He will not have to look nervous and walk out of the room because the grandchild is asking such a serious question. He will be able to say, as he looks the grandchild in the eye, that he did something to stop these elitists ripping people off.

He could withdraw this bill, but he will not. He will not. But it is not too late, even now, for him to actually do what is his duty. And it is not hiding behind the skirts of women. It is not praising the white man who came from Merrill Lynch. It is not cuddling up to all those wide boys next to him now. No, no, it is the time for duty, and the clarion call of all those who ever came to New Zealand First is “Honour thy people”. That is why we will oppose this legislation.

BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) : This bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, is a bill of contradiction. The member in charge of the bill comes from a party that told New Zealanders before the election that it promotes free enterprise. But rather than freedom, honesty, and transparency—inseparables—he brings before this House a distortionary piece of legislation more akin to fascism.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No balance.

BRENDAN HORAN: No balance. I would draw New Zealanders’ attention to the stance taken by the Māori Party before the election.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What do they say?

BRENDAN HORAN: Well, here is a quote: “Why would we intentionally want to support legislation that the unions tell us could be disadvantageous for low-income workers …”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who said that?

BRENDAN HORAN: The Māori Party said that. “Our priority in employment legislation is that we give due consideration to initiatives that enhance labour relations rather than threaten to impact negatively on one side and advantage another.” Then it goes on: “For all these reasons, we have given this bill serious and due consideration.”, and it finishes with: “We are, therefore, opposed to this bill.” Where is the Māori Party now? Flip-flop. I think flip-flop may be contagious, and we are in danger of Whānau Ora needing more money for that disease.

Simon O’Connor: Which bill are you talking about?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This bill—the one you haven’t read.

BRENDAN HORAN: Ha, ha! No, well, it is interesting, is it not? There we have the National Party riding on the backs of the Māori Party, of the “Dunne nothing” United Future, and of ACT over there. It is very interesting that the honourable David Bennett was quoting Martin Luther King before, because Martin Luther King also said: “A man can’t ride your back unless it’s bent.”

A lot has been said on this proposed legislation, and some cutting and cruel remarks have been said about the Hon Tau Henare. I would like to send some warm thoughts his way—a little bit of love from this side. It is not the National Party kind of love, which says: “This is our candidate, but vote for someone else.”; it is not the Labour kind of love, because it is not a labour of love to enjoy the Hon Tau Henare’s company, but more the love one would have for a prodigal son. But—

Hon Member: Be careful, he might come back.

BRENDAN HORAN: Ha, ha! But the driving criteria to determine New Zealand First’s feelings about this bill are threefold. One, is it fair? Two, is it harmonious? Three, will New Zealand be a better place because of this new legislation? Is it fair? No. Is it harmonious? No. Will New Zealand be a better place? No. And there is an irony here, because already that is three strikes.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : Sometimes one comes across an aged individual who is still of sound mind, is able to make lucid commentary, and is somebody who can wow us with their knowledge and wisdom. Sadly, the speech from the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not one of those occasions. [Interruption] Ha, ha! I say to Brendan Horan that he should not have yielded his 5 minutes to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because the House gained nothing from that 5 minutes.

Today is liberation day. Today is liberation day for New Zealand workers who are members of unions that have not yet embraced the democratic principles of holding a secret ballot when strike action is being considered. I say it is a shame that members of the Opposition are not supporting this bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.

They made a wise choice to support the bill at its first reading. In fact, I was going through the Hansard and saw a relatively cogent speech from the Hon Trevor Mallard, one of the few of that type of speech you hear from him. But they bottled it in the second reading speeches, they are bottling it today in the third reading speeches, and it is clear that rational thought processes were dropped by the wayside when they came to considering whether to support the bill at the second and third readings.

Today is the day when members opposite need to decide which side of this issue they support. Do they, on the one hand, stand by the very workers who will benefit from this bill—stand by and support workers’ rights? Do they stand for giving workers the opportunity to vote on a question of going on strike free from intimidation, free from coercion, and free to make up their own minds? Or are members opposite instead going to be standing by their union masters by opposing an absolute and genuine pro-worker piece of legislation?

We know what the Labour Party thinks about employment relations. We know what Andrew Little thinks about employment relations. In fact, I am looking forward to the speech that we are probably going to get from Andrew Little. I am looking forward to him telling the House what he thinks of employers. The fact that he said on Facebook that the only parasites out there are employers—that is what the Labour Party thinks of the very people who give New Zealanders jobs; who create the jobs for New Zealanders to work in. [Interruption] Those members do not like hearing about what their own members are saying out there in the community. Their own members are out there calling employers parasites. Well, I say that is appalling.

This bill is a pro-worker piece of legislation, because it says to workers that we value them having the ability to determine their own destiny. We value Joe Smith, worker, being able to assess for himself, free from any outside influence, his own personal situation and deciding for himself whether going on strike is the right thing to do.

Going on strike cannot be easy. It can be financially and morally devastating. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it is not a decision that a worker should have to make without having the freedom to do so without someone standing over the top of them. It was a shame to read a number of the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from folk who tried to say they supported the concept of having secret ballots but then said they do not support the bill—a bizarre situation that the Labour Party is finding itself in, as well.

I know why we are getting interjections from members on the other side. I know why they do not support this bill. They are concerned that one day they might have to have a secret ballot for their leadership vote, because the only way they are keeping David Shearer in there at the moment is by using the bully-boy union tactics that they are concerned this bill is going to stop.

The submitters who found themselves in a position where they were saying they supported the secret strike concept but could not support the bill really should ask themselves this question: is giving workers the ability to decide for themselves without someone standing over the top of them a good thing or not? It absolutely is, and I say to the Labour Party that it should be supporting this piece of legislation today.

We have learnt a few things this afternoon. We have learnt that the Labour Party does not support individual freedom. It does not support freedom of choice, the Green Party does not support freedom of choice either, and the New Zealand First Party does not support freedom of choice. If they did support freedom of choice, they would be standing up in the House today and supporting this bill.

If members want to stand in this House and say that they do support the concept of secret ballots, which is what a number of speeches have been saying in both the first and second readings—and we have heard it a few times this afternoon as well—and that they think it is a good thing that a number of unions already have secret ballot provisions in their rules, then they should go the step further and support this bill, and do the right thing by giving workers the freedom that they deserve.

I want to address the comments that we have heard about an imbalance between employers and employees, because the people who have been making those comments clearly did not read the first drafts of the Employment Relations Act. They did not read the Employment Relations Act as it was passed by the last Labour Government. If you want to talk about balances between employers and employees, you can see absolutely that the Employment Relations Act moved the balance so far in one direction that it has taken this Government a number of years to move it back towards equilibrium, where it should be.

I want to also touch on the Ports of Auckland for a moment, because I think it is important that we talk a little bit about what has become the key and well-known industrial dispute this year. It is fair to say that the Ports of Auckland dispute probably would not have got as bad as it did if there was the opportunity for those Ports of Auckland workers to have a secret ballot for their strike.

Hon Members: Oh!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: They do not like to hear it, but the fact of the matter is that dozens and dozens of Ports of Auckland workers have left the union and gone back to work. A lot of those workers wanted to go back to work. A lot of those workers wanted to get back on the cranes, they wanted to get back on the straddle-trucks, and they wanted to get back and serve the Auckland community on Auckland’s port, but they could not. They could not do so because there was not the opportunity to have a secret ballot on the question of whether they should go on strike. They had people there intimidating them and coercing them into voting for strike action. They were not able to make their own minds up free from intimidation, free from coercion—

Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek your advice on that, because the matters the member is raising are actually currently before the Employment Court, and they are a matter of facilitation, and also a court case.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I just caution members, if that is the case. I am not aware of that myself, but I just caution members to be very careful in what they say. The second thing, while I am on my feet, is that while interjection is acceptable, this is a robust debate and there are some strong feelings on both sides. I ask that, instead of the shouting, the interjections be reasonable, so that I can actually not only hear the speaker but also hear the interjections as well.

Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just wondering whether there is a Standing Order that caters for the circumstances where the person who is speaking is telling untruths.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you cannot say—[Interruption] Order! This is an honourable House, and members are taken at their word. If the member has some conflict, or does not agree with what the member is saying, that is a rebuttal point in a debate. These are matters of opinion and matters of debate. You cannot say that someone is lying. There is a Speaker’s ruling to that effect. You cannot say that someone is telling lies or lying. These are debatable points, and the opportunity arises in debate—and I know that the party has an opportunity shortly—to respond by way of a 5 minute call. If the member or a member from the party is taking a call, that is the chance then to rebut what has been said, but you cannot say that a person is lying or has told lies.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I take it that the opposition from the Green Party earlier was about my reference to it not supporting freedom of choice, and I absolutely stand by that comment. I absolutely stand by the comment that the Green Party does not support freedom of choice, because it is not supporting this bill. It is not supporting workers having the option to make their own decision by way of secret ballot when it comes to deciding whether or not they go on strike. If Green members do support freedom of choice, if they disagree with the comments I have made here this afternoon, they should be voting for this piece of legislation.

Finally, I want to congratulate the Hon Tau Henare. In fact, I probably should call him the Hon “Martin Luther” Henare, given the number of comments and quotes he has made with regard to Martin Luther King here this afternoon. But he has done the right thing by putting this piece of legislation into the ballot, shepherding it through the parliamentary process, and bringing it to a third reading here this afternoon, where we in this Parliament are able to help liberate workers and give them the freedom to make their own decisions during strike actions.

Mr Henare has done a good job, and this bill will go down in history as a piece of legislation that he can look back on and remember for doing something good for workers in New Zealand. I look forward to it being read for a third time this afternoon.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) : I want to begin by acknowledging our colleague Tau Henare. I know that in his comments earlier this afternoon, he referred to comments I made in the second reading debate that he took offence at. So I want to begin on a positive note by acknowledging that, and by saying to Tau Henare that I apologise for any offence caused by the reference to him and his wife and that I certainly wish him the best.

The thing about Tau Henare is this, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters acknowledged it, too: Tau Henare spent some time in an honourable and noble cause working for workers in the union movement. I have long had a philosophy as a union secretary that those who have worked for working people and in their cause are entitled to have that acknowledged and respected, because it is difficult work. It is hard work. It is also for that reason, though, that I wonder how it is that Mr Henare has found himself in the position where he is promoting this legislation, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, which is not about supporting workers and which does not add, create, or generate any greater freedom of choice.

Although Mr Henare quoted Martin Luther King—and even he acknowledges that he is not his equivalent, as Jami-Lee Ross had suggested—my favourite union quote comes from an outstanding union leader of a period gone by, John L. Lewis, the first head of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. He said—and I remember it in my best recall, which is slightly better than John Banks’—that “It ill behooves those who have sheltered in the house of labor and supped at its table to criticize with equal fervour and fine impartiality labor and its protagonists when they are locked in deadly embrace.” There have been benign remarks about those employers who have embarked on vicious lockouts this year, Talley’s AFFCO, the Ports of Auckland, and Oceania Group, referring to them in benign terms, when actually that is the most vicious action that an employer can take on workers. And this legislation says that it is about promoting freedom of choice for workers! Well, let us get the concepts right.

David Bennett, the current chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which considered this legislation, said in his comments that it is about freedom of choice. Workers have freedom of choice. They have the freedom of choice to belong to a union. We have voluntary unionism in this country—freedom of association. That is the choice, in just the same way that people have the freedom to do so many other things. But once they have exercised that freedom of choice, we do not then get the Government to go interfering in all the other decisions that they get involved in. We do not get it involved in the Papakura Chess Club when it comes to elect its president for the year, decide who the committee is, or decide how it will spend its money. We do not have legislation that does that.

We allow people the freedom of association to belong, and we allow workers the freedom to make that choice, to stick with their colleagues, and to stick with their workmates. Here is the real truth about National: it does not like it when workers not only have freedom of choice but also exercise it, because it upsets its corporate mates.

I might add this too, for those who criticise me. I have worked in my time with thousands of workers and with hundreds of employers. The hard-grafting employers are trying to make a crust and are trying to make stuff they can sell on the international market. Every day they are battling against the economic conditions that are the responsibility of this Government, not the least of which is an extraordinarily high exchange rate, which this Government cannot care about, because it is led by a Prime Minister who made his money—made his millions of dollars—off gaming exchange rates. It will not do anything about it. But there are so many employers who struggle to make ends meet, who look after their workforce, and who are trying to export into markets, who, when they price a job, do not know when they come to supply whether they are going to make money off it. National does not care about those employers. It cares about the moneymen, the ones who can write out the big cheques—the ones who look after it.

I have worked for the strugglers and the battlers, the employers and their workforces, to make it work, to make it good, and they are the ones we should care about. This bill will do nothing for them or their workforces. Workers have the freedom of choice, but they should not then have that freedom of choice interfered with by silly, meddling, meaningless, fruitless, pointless legislation like this, because it will not help.

The difference between Labour Party and the National Party is that we are not locked in a 1970s mentality of the workplace and workforces, as it is. Those members just do not get it. With all due respect to Tau Henare, who is the great modernist of the National Party, he has not worked for a union for nearly 20–for over 20 years.

Moana Mackey: 30 years.

ANDREW LITTLE: Thirty years—it is now 30 years. No wonder those members do not get it. No wonder they think that it is really smart to pass a law like this, because they are just out of touch and they just do not care.

We can see what this legislation is about. We saw it because of the submissions that National unleashed from its corporate employer mates in Business New Zealand. Let us see what it said. It said: “Oh yeah, don’t stop at legislating for a secret ballot.”, which so many unions now have. They are unions like the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the Service and Food Workers Union, the FIRST Union, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and all those other decent, good, hard-edged, leading unions. They already have them. What did Business New Zealand say? It said: “Don’t stop there. Introduce more hurdles. Make it a 75 percent threshold before you can take strike action.” Well, I do not see Business New Zealand calling for a 75 percent threshold for its boardroom decisions. Oh no! It would not want that. It is too hard. Of course, the party of the corporate dollar sitting opposite would not want to do that, either.

The right to withdraw one’s labour is absolutely fundamental. It has been recognised in our laws for over a hundred years. It has been recognised internationally through that great institution, the International Labour Organization. Blood was lost to secure it in this country and in so many other countries, and even today in many countries around the world, working people are losing their lives, losing their limbs, to fight for the right to organise, to work with their colleagues, and to stand up to their employers to get a fair and just settlement of their conditions.

The dividing line between a society that allows workers to withdraw their labour or does not is legislation like this. This is about increasing the domination and control by employers. There is no call for it. It is not necessary in modern and effective workplace regulation, which recognises and respects the choice that working people can make. The right to withdraw labour—the right to make the collective decision with your workmates to withdraw your labour—must be upheld and must be safeguarded. This bill is ill-informed. It is out of touch. It is a silly gesture designed to obstruct the observance of this basic right. It is unnecessary.

Workers can make their own decision. They will make a decision if they think it is right to go on strike, and they will make a decision if they think it is not right to go on strike. If the member who is promoting this bill was genuinely concerned about fairness and equality, then we would also have in this bill equal requirements on employers before they lock out. That is not there, and that lends the lie to those who say that this bill is about greater freedom and greater choice—it is not. It is not.

The language that Mr Henare used when he made his comments was: when workers are “asked to withdraw their labour”. I can tell you, as someone who has been at those meetings, that at difficult disputes and at difficult negotiations, you do not ask workers to withdraw their labour; they demand it. Actually, for most union leaders their job is to counsel workers about what the implications are of industrial action, because it is hard, nasty, ugly stuff, and you do not get into it light-heartedly. I have yet to meet a worker, of the thousands I have dealt with, who light-heartedly or wantonly votes for industrial action. They just do not do it.

The difference between this side and that side is that those members do not meet workers. They do not talk to workers. They do not meet meatworkers, either. They should do, because they would hear quite a good story about how a nasty, vicious employer is treating its workforce. If you want to know the reality about that dispute, here is the email I got from a very wealthy person north of Auckland, who has been to a stock agent to talk about selling his stock. He was told this. The stock agent said: “Don’t. They are offering very low prices, which are nothing to do with the international trade. It is due to the strike.” There is a backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter. By refusing to deal with employees and the union, the owners of the company were able to manipulate the market down.

That is what Talley’s is doing. It will use industrial law to do it. This Government is supporting and promoting it, and this law is just a furtherance of that objective. It is wrong; there is no call for it. It should be scrapped, and if any member opposite has a conscience and understands working people and the workplace today, they will gladly rise and say: “We don’t need this and we will vote against it.”

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) : There is always a paradox when we talk about Luther and conscience, as in that call from the honourable member, Andrew Little, as I stand to speak here today. I think it is good to start by saying that this Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill is not a bill that talks about the right to strike or freedom of association. This is about the process of making the decision to strike. I think that is an incredibly important distinction. I cannot think for the Opposition or others, but this may help defuse some of the tensions that are there at the moment. Again, it comes back to the whole principle that you have the right to strike, and you can strike. When circumstance allows, a person can strike.

This bill, though, in the name of the Hon Tau Henare, is looking at the process about how a person moves to make the decision to strike. In doing so, it is with a great conscience—and I hope I sleep well tonight—that I stand in support, positively. It is always good to be positive, I think—

Hon Nathan Guy: That’s right.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —absolutely—in support of this member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. Again, I just want to acknowledge Tau Henare and the work he has done not only to bring this to the House but also to take it through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and to take, I believe, suggestions that have come from the floor and elsewhere and to incorporate them into the bill that we have in front of us now.

I wanted to address a couple of the thoughts, questions, insights, if you will, that were being put out through this debate. One was that we do not have any problem, so why do we need this bill? You know, why put the law in place if it is already running perfectly? The first reason is clarity. I have always thought that one of the great principles of democracy and of this House is to have clarity in the law. There is no harm in taking the time, at an appropriate time in this House, to clarify the law, to codify it, to give it some structure, and also to make success clear.

I acknowledge what an honourable member was noting earlier, that some major unions are conducting secret ballots, and that is an excellent thing. That is something to be acknowledged. But this House can be about success: celebrating it, clarifying it, and codifying it into the House. To use an analogy, if it is going well for others, why not draw that into legislation? Why not put that across all the unions in this case so that they can share in that success? I have heard some say “No, there’s still no need; there is still no need.” You know, we have to look at it and say: “Well, look, analogously, some people look after the environment, some people are concerned about different aspects, so let us not do any legislation around it because, you know, some are already doing it well.” That does not really work. It is not a logical conclusion.

I find that law is often about exceptions. We put law in place to deal with exceptions. People have been talking about their backgrounds, and a small part of my recent one is around contracts. The whole point of contracts is not to work with what is happening day by day; it is to work with exceptions. In some ways this is what this law is about. It is about trying to take the exceptions in the unions, where democracy is not fully expressed, and allowing it to become the norm, to follow the example of many unions in allowing secret ballots.

But also this law is about providing certainty. It is not trying to rely on the moral goodwill of unions or individuals—union leaders, in particular—to do the right thing. It does not work. Moral goodwill does not always work. Again, this is one of the points why we have this legislature: to come along and provide certainty. I want to add, too, that when we got on to the aspects of morality a bit earlier from one of the speeches, we cannot go about in this House constantly linking every issue to the UN, to human rights, to the change in oil prices, or whatever. This is really a fairly simple debate.

I also want to add that this is not about the particular strikes that we have had currently, in the past, or in the future, and I say that because this is about democratic process. This bill is very simple. It is about the democratic principle to vote, and to vote secretly. I think it really comes down to that. I was always a great believer in principles, because what this is about is the Employment Relations Act. It is about modifying it to allow individuals within the unions to exercise a democratic right to vote secretly.

Strikes are a serious undertaking.

Andrew Little: So are lockouts.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, anything like that, lockouts, strikes, they are a serious undertaking, and I am sure the honourable member would agree, therefore, as a consequence, that these decisions of a lockout or a strike should not be taken lightly. In terms of a strike, these are communal actions. Strikes are a communal action, but each individual person is affected. So to that end, in my thinking, it is paramount that each individual has the complete freedom to act as they see fit.

Looking at the democratic principles, a secret ballot enables that. They have the right, therefore, to exercise, democratically, their vote secretly. I cannot perceive the threat, the concern, or the problem with that, because, ultimately, secret ballots ensure freedom. They ensure a democracy. There are plenty of analogies—and many of them have been flown across the House today and in weeks past—around the secret ballot.

This is not something new. This is not new to our democracy here in New Zealand or around the world. I think, actually, the last time that I stood to speak on this bill, I noted that the idea of secret ballots had been around since the 18th and 19th centuries. Being the type of person that I am, I decided to pick up old Hansard records from the past and read through the debates. It is fascinating how, in some ways, history repeats itself. The same arguments against secret ballots continued back then; they are continuing here today.

Personally, a secret ballot empowers people. It empowers our democracy and the action of voting to bring us here to Parliament, and I cannot see any problem with exercising it in any unions, because, as has been noted many a time, it is already enacted in many unions. Let us codify it, let us simplify it, and let us express it in law. Personally, as I stand here in the 21st century, I do not know why we would look backward, if you like, and oppose this sort of democratic lineage. I think it is great to be part of a Parliament that is expanding and working to expand and enable this democratic process. You know, it really is a privilege to be in this Parliament. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament that is helping develop the democratic process.

But I thought I would just turn very quickly to some of the other issues that were being brought up, because there has been a bit of a discussion around lockouts versus strikes, and board stakeholders versus unions. I have been trying to give this some thought, but it is somewhat on the hop, so I will have to apologise in advance, if need be. People are saying that there is no symmetry here and that there is no similarity between the boards and the unions.

What I was thinking, though, was that boards are making decisions for others. The board is making a decision for others. When workers consider a strike, they are making a decision for themselves as individuals, and I think that is an important distinction. If individuals are going to be making their decision to strike, they need those universal principles that we talk about in the UN and others, these human rights—the ability to associate freely, as the Opposition agrees—but also the ability to express their democratic franchise as they see fit. In a union vote, when union members are making their vote to strike, they are making a direct and deliberate action of and for themselves. But when we look at a board, even when we look at shareholders—be it in a company, be it in a friendly society, or whatever—they are not making a direct association with themselves. It is indirect.

I think that is an important distinction and one that we do need to think about, because, at the end of the day, this bill does sit within a context of a National Government committed to all New Zealanders. We are not here to make random and rash decisions on people, to fire ad hominem names around. We are here to work for all New Zealanders. We have progressed to increase the minimum wage, we have put through the 90-day legislation to improve those opportunities, and we have worked to enable workers to have the right to choose—secretly or otherwise—how to use their fourth week of leave. I think it is important to put this debate within that context.

But I come back exactly to where I started from: that this really is a bill of principles. It is a principle of democracy. It is the ability as an individual to vote as you see fit, freely and secretly, and to take the success that the Opposition has spoken of, in the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and others, and say: “Hey, let’s codify this into practice. Let’s celebrate what is a good way of working, in order that people will make their right decisions.” [Interruption] I am going to stop there, just before there are more interjections, because, you know, we want to get down to the real business of getting this passed. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes with a minute to go.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : I just say to that member, Simon O’Connor, that there is just about time to get to the airport and get a plane to Auckland to the public meeting in his electorate, at which about 300 people will condemn and abuse National for its destruction of the community in Glen Innes. So, Mr O’Connor, you have got just enough time to get to the airport and get to that meeting. I urge you to get there; there will be a lot of your constituents there who are very keen to see you this evening.

It is generally a good idea and it is generally an accepted principle in this House not to make up unnecessary legislation for imaginary problems, but, sadly, that is exactly what is happening in this House tonight. The lion of Te Atatū—I think of him more as the sphinx of Te Atatū; he has got the energy levels and the productive output of a sphinx—comes down to this House tonight with the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill.

What is this bill about? The New Zealand Herald reported that the bill’s proponent, the Hon Tau Henare, says that “the idea came from his time as a union organiser in the 1980s, when he stood before workers before a show-of-hands strike vote with a presence that ‘would have made them think twice about voting no’.” So the sphinx of Te Atatū comes to this House with a bill that is setting out to solve a problem that is 30 years old, from when he was an organiser in the Clerical Workers Union, when he was a bully and a thug for the Clerical Workers Union, as reported by the New Zealand Herald.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I do not know whether referring to a member as a thug is acceptable.

PHIL TWYFORD: Can I speak to the point of order?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I know in the context of this debate it is robust, but I think calling someone a thug is unparliamentary. I will just ask the member to continue.

PHIL TWYFORD: As the New Zealand Herald pointed out, what motivated the man who brought this bill to the House was his own behaviour of intimidation and bullying 30 years ago, as he told the New Zealand Herald. There is no evidence that has been put before this House or the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there is any kind of problem to be solved here, other than Mr Henare’s own behaviour 30 years ago.

This is an unnecessary bill in response to an imaginary problem. Dozens of hours—dozens of hours—of this House’s time have been wasted debating a bill that should never ever have been brought to this House. We have got record numbers of New Zealanders heading across the Tasman, we have got 160,000 people unemployed, we have a faltering economy, and we have dangerous levels of private sector debt. And what does this National Government think is a priority? What does it think is an important matter to be brought to this House? A ridiculous bill that is looking for a problem to solve.

We have been talking this evening about the fact that this bill is based on a blatant piece of discrimination. It tries to impose on workers’ organisations a cumbersome and expensive compliance mechanism that interferes in the running and the constitution of workers’ organisations. Why? There is no good reason. It imposes on unions the obligation to have a secret ballot. It sets in place the opportunity for employers to take frivolous and vexatious legal claims against the unions. But it does not place the same kind of obligation on corporate governance structures.

We have heard tonight dancing on the head of a pin from that side of the House. We have heard a pathetic lecture from David Bennett about corporate governance theory. Each one of them, Jami-Lee Ross, Simon O’Connor, and David Bennett, have utterly failed to justify why this bill places the obligation on workers’ organisations and nothing like it for businesses, either for shareholders or for boards of directors. That simple contradiction exposes why this bill is based on blatant ideological prejudice from the National Government. That is what this bill is about. There is no good reason for it, and it is a waste of this House’s time.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to have an opportunity to address this issue. Before I go to the bill, the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, I would just like to assist the member from Auckland Jami-Lee Ross. His experience is obviously rather limited about what happened at the Ports of Auckland. I suggest that maybe he has not got a lot of union experience, but he might like to go and count the number of secret ballots that have already been held by the union in industrial disputes. He might like to go down there and check it out before he makes those statements.

The Green Party considers this bill to be in the same category as the Immigration Amendment Bill, which suggested that boatloads of migrants would arrive en masse via the Tasman Sea. This is a bill, again, looking for a problem—or is there a more sinister dimension?

Hon Members: Oh!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Indeed! Is the bill trying to legislate a time-honoured practice of the secret ballot over the right to strike so that it can chip away at the right to strike itself? The technicalities in the bill allow this outcome. If a union can be challenged legally for failing to follow the letter of this law, or even cannot prove to the employer that they held a secret ballot, the strike decision can be undermined. The Green Party holds dear the International Labour Organization position on the right to strike. The right to strike was won through sacrifice and suffering, and any moves to use the law to technically undermine its power is basically abhorrent.

Union membership is voluntary. No one has to join, and no one has to strike. Unions hold ballots. That is their business, and not the business of the employer or this Parliament. How the unions conduct secret ballots to decide their industrial action is an internal matter.

Like all bills, this bill has a context, and that context is a Government that sees unions as a problem, rather than an essential part of the industrial relations arena. If you cannot strike, or decide to strike, without the interference of the law, there is not a lot left. The bottom line for workers in this country, and indeed in the world, is the right to withhold your labour—our labour. No one wants to do this because—light bulb moment, perhaps, for some people—when workers are on strike, they do not actually get paid. They do not get paid, and they cannot feed their families. Have a talk to the AFFCO workers right now about feeding their families. They only take this collective agreed action at the end of the road. Now, under this bill, their decisions will be made subject to the negative scrutiny of people who do not want that strike to take place in the first place.

It appears there are always new ways to make workers’ rights and striking unlawful. On 13 November 100 years ago Frederick Evans was beaten to death in Waihī by the strikebreakers and the police. His death was an example of what is, fortunately, a rare occurrence in the labour history of this country—but not of the world—but it acts as a warning to anyone who thinks this is a frivolous matter, to anyone who thinks that going on strike is something that we take lightly. The workers from the Ports of Auckland, Oceania Group, and Talley’s are enduring stress and financial hardship through lockouts and strikes. They are struggling in an effort to negotiate fair pay and conditions and, crucially, the right to make collective decisions, including the right to strike. The fundamental rights of working people to organise themselves and to decide action for themselves, without interference from the Crown or employers, are what these now voluntary, membership-based organisations need to have legally upheld.

I am afraid the Green Party believes this bill is not a helpful contribution. It is not the result of many working people who are union members begging Mr Henare for assistance to help them with their right to organise. The question of who would actually benefit from this legislation always has to be asked, and the answer would be the employer. It is no surprise when employers want to have a go at the right to strike, but let us not dress it up as something else. That is what is sinister.

I stood on the picket line with the aged-care workers of Oceania Group, the people doing the most vital job, caring for our elderly, for the minimum wage. They were not there because they were coerced. They were not there because they were manipulated or through shonky ballot. They were union members at their wit’s end on how to live on low wages. Let us respect their rights and the rights of unions to withhold their labour.

The chant outside this House on Friday was “When workers’ rights are under attack, stand up and fight back.” The National-led Government has repeatedly engaged in attacks on workers since it was elected in 2008. I can think of the 90-day bill, the holidays bill, the right of unions to visit the workplace, and workers’ ability to take sick leave without being interrogated.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) : What an honour and a privilege it is to conclude and be the final speaker in this, the third reading of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill, so capably introduced by my colleague the Hon Tau Henare and guided through the House by him with such style and grace.

This is an important piece of legislation. On the face of it, it appears to be quite a small piece of legislation—simple in principle; simple in action. But it is very important, because it strikes, if you will pardon the pun, at the very heart of our democratic process and our democratic institutions, and of one of the things that we hold dear in our society and our community. That is the right of people to make decisions on important matters in group collectives, but by secret ballot. That is something that we all hold dear; it is a very fundamental part of our democratic process. And if it is good enough for every other aspect of our society, why is it not good enough for unions? Indeed, most unions actually already are enlightened and do conduct secret ballots on important matters, such as strikes. So this simple piece of legislation simply codifies this very foundation stone of democratic process: that when an important matter such as a strike is to be considered, that the ballot about that decision should be held in secret. It is a simple, effective, and time-honoured process.

The bill supports the creation of a positive workplace environment, and that is important because these days we live in enlightened times where we know that positive, constructive, collegial workplace environments actually benefit employees and employers. They create a great environment for business and enterprise to prosper and succeed. So this bill encourages that. As I have already said, many unions already do adopt a secret ballot process in matters to do with strikes. So the question I ask, and the question that this bill seeks to remedy, is: why not all of them? That is what this will do. I am very, very pleased and proud to be able to speak in support of this legislation today. Unions do it already because they know it is the right thing to do. They do it already because they know it is the right, proper, and correct democratic thing to do. It is only the rump, a few minor, less progressive, and less enlightened unions, that do not have secret ballots.

Hon Tau Henare: The EPMU.

SCOTT SIMPSON: TheEngineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, the Hon Tau Henare tells me, is one of them and I am sure that is right.

This is not about union bashing. It is not about attacking unions. It is not about having a go at unions. It is not about being vindictive or attacking unions. It is about democracy and about what is important, not about being punitive or punishing unions. It is about democracy and freedom, and it is about a basic fundamental right of any organisation and any member of any organisation in our society. It is for freedom of choice. That is what we on this side of the House hold dear. That is why we are members of the National Party. Even though I am a new member in this House it has been obvious to me, through listening to the debates, that on this subject the Labour members are very clear: they do not like choice. They do not like freedom of choice, and they do not like democracy when it does not suit them.

In a less enlightened time, and more years ago than I care to remember, I was a member of a union. It was in the days of compulsory unionism, and I was a member because I was compulsorily made to be a member of the union. I was working in a holiday job while I was at university, and I was working for a chartered club. It was the Commercial Travellers Club, actually. My job was in the bottle store. [Interruption] My job was in the bottle store. Andrew Little may well have been the union rep, and my job in the bottle store involved spending most of my working day in the beer fridge—in the chiller. What would happen was that once a week a big truck would arrive and offload 25 or 30 pallets of beer—quart bottles in wooden crates; the sort that we used to drink. My job then was to unload those box by box, crate by crate, and store them in the chiller. Then over the rest of the week my job was to bring them out of the fridge and put them on the counter, or into the boot of the customers’ cars.

What I did not know was that just before Christmas, at the busy time for chartered clubs, the union would usually go on strike. It would usually go on strike to cause the maximum impact and damage to the employer, and they would do it just before Christmas when customers were celebrating Christmas festivities, and at a time designed to cause the most strife and concern to those employers. I was very keen to go to work. I liked the dignity of work. It was a holiday job, and it was in the days before we had student loans and what have you, so I needed the money and I wanted to work. But the union that I was compulsorily a member of wanted to go on strike. So we had a stopwork meeting, which I was duly forced to attend. We went to the stopwork meeting; I remember it well. It was held in the public bar of a fairly seedy pub in South Auckland, and there gathered several hundred people. And guess what? After some rousing speeches by the union organisers calling on the brothers and the sisters to strike, what happened was that a vote was called for to strike.

At first there was a voice vote—voices were asked for—so the overwhelming number of people there voted in favour of the strike by voice. There were only a few of us who actually voted by voice against going on strike. I remember it well. What I remember then was that after the voice vote was taken, somebody called for a show of hands—and it was not the people who were in the minority; it was the people in the majority who asked for a show of hands. They wanted to know who had the temerity to vote against them. So then a show of hands was called for. What happened then was that even fewer of us had the intestinal fortitude to raise a hand when a show of hands was called for. So we went on strike. I lost several days’ pay, the employer was incredibly inconvenienced, and I had a personal situation where we had standover tactics—the intimidation, language, and physical abuse that followed.

I am the first to admit that that was a less enlightened time. It was a less enlightened time, and now we have unions that are more modern in their view and their aspect, and they do handle things more appropriately. But if it was not for a few old-fashioned unions that still insist on a show of hands vote—standover tactics—then that would mean that we would not have to have this legislation. So I want to thank the Hon Tau Henare. I want to thank him for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I want to thank him for his work and for being an advocate for open and free democracy.

I am told, even though I was not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that there was vigorous debate there, and that Labour members tried everything they could to halt the progress of this bill through the select committee. That is shameful. That is very shameful. Tau Henare did an excellent job. National is focused on ensuring that there is a fair and flexible employment environment. Democracy is a good thing. Democracy is a good thing in all that we do, and it is amazing to see Labour members, who normally take such a high and mighty moral high ground on such matters, try to argue on the head of a pin that in this case democracy should not occur.

This bill is about transparency, it is about freedom, it is about democracy, and it removes the potential for criticism of the ballot process. No decision is more important in the lives and day-to-day activities of union members than the decision to go on strike or not to go on strike, and so the few remaining unions that do not have secret ballots need to be brought into order. This is a bill for freedom from intimidation, freedom from coercion, freedom to choose, and freedom to vote. Today, as my colleague Jami-Lee Ross said, this is “Liberation Day”, it is “Freedom Day”, and it is “Democracy Day” for New Zealand workers. In the words of Martin Luther King, already quoted in this House by the Hon Tau Henare: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!” [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! Members, this debate is concluded.

DARIEN FENTON (Junior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to move that this vote be conducted by secret ballot, so the National Party members who have been coerced into voting for it do not have to have their vote recorded.

• A party vote was called for on the question that the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The votes are taken in silence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I declare the House in Committee—[Interruption] Order! Order! We are in a process where I am announcing what the next debate is going to be, and this is taken in silence.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I seek leave for all questions on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : Thank you for that Nostradamus-like faux pas, Mr Chairman. It is my great pleasure to give just a broad overview of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill and to perhaps remind the Committee of the long gestation that we have had in coming to this point. The bill was introduced and then drawn from the members’ ballot in the name of my friend and colleague the Hon Amy Adams. I want to acknowledge her not only for her initiative in bringing this bill before the House and now the Committee but also for her rapid progress into Cabinet, which, of course, prevents her from progressing the bill further.

The bill had its first reading as long ago as December 2009, and having been referred to the Commerce Committee for its consideration, that committee reported back in March of—

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

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: During the dinner hour I hosted a function. Members may notice that I am wearing the bright orange gerbera, which is the symbol of Arthritis New Zealand, a group with which I have quite a bit to do. We were hosting a function to launch a study that has been done in conjunction with Pfizer about the day-to-day issues that people with chronic pain face. Of course, Arthritis New Zealand is one of the many, many charities around New Zealand that rely very heavily on the great generosity of New Zealanders. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think somewhere approaching $1 billion is now being donated to registered charities in this country, according to the Charities Commission. That says two things to me. Firstly, it says to me how very generous we are in our giving, and, secondly, how heavily those organisations rely on that charitable giving. It is important, I think, that those people who do give are fully informed about what they are giving to and the manner in which that money is being applied, including whether a percentage of that donated money might be being retained by third-party providers. That, indeed, was the intention of this bill when it was introduced.

I want to acknowledge the select committee, the Commerce Committee of the 49th Parliament, which was ably led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Quite some time ago now it considered the bill, and, as that committee will know and as I am pleased to inform members, the bill has undergone something of a rewrite from its form when it was first read. The intention of the bill when it was first introduced was to add to section 26 of the Fair Trading Act. Section 26 is really a section that has more in the nature of prohibitions—what people should not do—rather than direct reference to specific performance, which is what the intention of this bill was. So on the advice given to the committee and after submissions, the committee has recommended that the bill, rather than amend and add to section 26, add a new section 28A—just to be clear about which sections they are. Section 28A is inserted, which will actually provide the Minister of Consumer Affairs with the power to recommend to the Governor-General by Order in Council that there be regulations made in respect of the regulation of fund-raisers. That, indeed, is the question being faced by the Committee tonight.

I think that is quite a significant change, albeit that the specific intent of the bill is very much maintained. There were a number of questions and comments around that in the second reading debate, and I certainly look forward to addressing them as I can. I look forward to those comments.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I too, being the first speaker on this side of the Chamber to speak to this bill in the Committee stage, would like to acknowledge the work that the Commerce Committee did on this bill under the chairpersonship of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was very well chaired, and there were some really interesting discussions and some good submissions. As I always do, I would like to acknowledge the work that the Commerce Committee does, as it is a very effective and functioning select committee. I would also like to acknowledge the work that the member who originally brought the bill to this House, Amy Adams, did, and the good work she put into it.

Hon Phil Heatley: And thank you, Clare.

CLARE CURRAN: You are very welcome. I would like to reference some things that were said during the second reading of the bill and talk a little bit further about them. I think it was Louise Upston who actually spoke first in the second reading of the bill. She said that the purpose of the bill was to increase the transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses that collect the funds on behalf of registered charities, because there was a concern that a disproportionate percentage of donated money may be retained by third-party collectors to cover costs. We reiterate that those views were very important. Ultimately, this bill is about recognising the right of people to know where their hard-earned money goes when they choose to donate to charity: to the charity of their choice or to profit-making third-party collectors.

There is always—or there should be—an underlying principle behind any bill. Sometimes in this House I wonder whether there is, but certainly in this bill there is actually an underlying principle, which is a worthy principle. It is that it is consistent with sound consumer rights principles, like transparency and informed choice for consumers. I have a lot of commitment to those things, as do the members of the party who sit on this side of the Chamber, and I consider that those things are actually pretty damn important.

I too went to a function during the dinner break. It was a function about polling, about truth telling in polling, and about how polling is reported and actually conducted. That is also an issue that is quite dear to my heart, as evidenced by the background that I have and the work that I have done for the past 20-something years. Truth telling in polling and reporting is really important, just as it is in debate, discussion, policy, and legislation that is conducted in this Parliament. I would like to talk in relation to those principles of consumer rights and transparency and informed choice in relation to this bill—if I do not finish, I am sure I will get another chance during the debate in the Committee stage of this bill.

In the last 4 and a bit months of this year, a series of debacles in the House have come from that side of the House that are certainly not about truth telling, are not about consumer rights, and are not about transparency or informed choice. I actually wrote a list of them—I am sure some of my colleagues would certainly come up with a few more—and there are some very significant ones that are not about transparency. The point is how can you trust a piece of legislation that is brought in the name of truth telling, consumer rights principles, transparency, and informed choice, when there is not any being demonstrated from that side of the House? [Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Clare Curran.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am just getting started. I would like to list them, because they are all to do with dirty deals, cronyism, and background, backroom discussions that really are not about informed choice or discussion with the public of New Zealand, and the public of New Zealand does not really know what is going on. They have to cop what is being decided by that side of the House. We will start with the Crafar farms. Then we had the asset sales and the asset sales legislation. And as part of the asset sales, we are now seeing, in relation to consumer rights and the principles of transparency and informed choice, which lie behind this particular bill, the Skycity issue, which is essentially selling the law; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade debacle; and the teapot tapes, the cup of tea with John Banks—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are talking here tonight about the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. The member, who is an experienced member of the House, should know better and should bring it back to the relevant legislation that we are discussing tonight, not some sordid allegations that she is dreaming up.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. First of all can I say that I did actually indicate to the member on my left to narrow it, and she did so, and then she moved out again. I just warn the member to try to talk to the debate. Can I also say to the member on my right that points of order are terse and to the point. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate that the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill has as its base principle the principle of transparency and informed choice. The point I am making is that in order for that legislation to be trusted by the public of New Zealand, the principle of transparency and informed choice in legislation needs to be reflected across the behaviour of the party that is actually bringing the legislation into the House. What we have seen in the last 4 and a bit months is certainly not transparency. The principles of transparency, informed choice, and consumer rights have not been reflected in that behaviour. So I think it is important, with reference to this legislation, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, that we have the ability to do a comparison with some of the issues that have arisen consistently in this House.

I was going to also refer to the issue of the child poverty documentary, where you saw the Prime Minister’s own electorate chair, who sits on the board of New Zealand On Air, which funded the child poverty documentary, objecting to it being shown before the election. That case, actually—with relation to transparency and informed choice for the public of New Zealand—is certainly relevant here and important because it has actually been shown through a recent decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority that there was no bias shown in that documentary. When you think about transparency in a piece of legislation—

Louise Upston: Are you going to talk about charities now?

CLARE CURRAN: Charities? Well, the thing is, if you want to talk about charities, you could talk about donations. We could get into donations to charity and the amounts of donations that have been made—two lots of $25,000—to certain members of this House who have had convenient amnesia—

Hon Members: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know the member was responding—order! Both of you, sit down, please. I know the member was responding to an interjection, and so I let her respond to that interjection, but now she needs to come back to the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate that this piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. Labour has supported it. It certainly does no harm. There has been a wide debate within the select committee. There were some very good submissions received, and there were some good submissions received from a number of charities who had some very good points to make. As you know, they included Arthritis New Zealand, which the member tonight referenced, and a number of other charities who had some very valid points to make, in good faith, about the importance of the issues they were bringing before us. And I suppose, you know, when you look at the points that are being made tonight about transparency, if a piece of legislation like this is actually going to the heart of what—

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I am very pleased to stand in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I would think that I, like many members of our communities, believe that making donations to charities is something of the Kiwi way of life. In fact, the MasterCard survey, which every 2 years surveys nations around the world in terms of the generosity of different societies, ranks New Zealand fairly highly as a generous society.

We have seen over the last 4 to 5 years the collapse of finance companies and the way that has deterred people from investing in those companies because they have been burnt. This Government over the last 3 years has been working strongly and in a very focused way on bringing transparency and accountability to the financial services industry in order to promote, once again, New Zealanders being active in that area.

Likewise in this particular area, when it comes to donating to charities, transparency is very important. People have heard at different times the amount of funds that have been used for the support of the third-party fund-raiser—not so much the charity, but the third-party fund-raiser—and the proportion of the donation that has gone to them has, in fact, been the cause for this bill to arise in the House. Many New Zealanders, when they know those figures, feel quite concerned, to the point where people stop donating to charities because they feel that the money they are donating is not getting to the cause they have given for. So for the sake of bona fide registered charities in our country, this bill will serve you. And for the sake of people who believe they are making donations to community efforts, organisations, or NGOs—churches, youth groups, or whatever it might be—knowing that there is accountability and transparency is going to give them the assurance that when they do donate, their money is going to a good cause.

I, like many people in our country, receive phone calls from different organisations, and from people who—

Hon Simon Bridges: I bet Andrew Little’s not calling you much lately.

JONATHAN YOUNG: No, he is not calling me much lately.

Andrew Little: Too busy in New Plymouth.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you. I am a very busy MP. My opponent across the way is making reference to the busyness I am engaged in in New Plymouth, and, of course, he learnt about that last November.

Anyway, in regard to all of this we do receive solicitation on the telephone from different organisations needing funds. Every single one, I understand, of the organisations that have called me are using third-party fund-raisers. Many, many years ago I gave my phone number to an organisation. I received a phone call, and, of course, I made a donation. I think that from that database I have probably been called by about 30 other different organisations. We have in this country what some people call an alms race—a-l-m-s. There is a lot of competition in our society for the donated dollar—the alms race. The donated dollar is highly competed for in this country. So when it comes to pieces of legislation for the people out there in charitable organisations or organisations that are doing good for our community, they may think this is just one more hurdle to stop people donating. But I say to you that it is the contrary: what this bill will do in creating accountability and transparency is sort the sheep from the goats. Those bona fide organisations—[Bell rung]—Mr Chair—that are worthy of support—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have not called the member. I call the honourable member Jonathan Young.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, Mr Chair. Those organisations that are worthy of support will submit themselves to the robustness of this regime. We understand, going through the select committee process, that there is a lot of complexity around this, and we know that submitters came and said it was actually going to turn people away from donating, as it would make it too difficult. Other people said: “No, actually, this is good.” We realise that amongst this whole sector, the charitable organisations sector of our country, this is an important point. In fact, Consumer New Zealand in 2009 was pushing for this. There has been some thinking by different groups of people over the last few years. We realise there is some complexity to that. At the Commerce Committee in discussion with the proposer, the sponsor, of the bill, the Hon Amy Adams, who is here this evening, we came to an agreement that by regulation all the fine details can be worked out, so that in consultation with the sector we can find a way to make this work so that it is win-win.

Our intention is not to stymie or stifle the donated funds from the public into these organisations. Our intention is actually to improve the quality of the return of those donated funds. So we, I believe, are going to see—as it progresses and becomes law, and as in due course regulations come out—a robustness around our charitable organisations. We are going to find some satisfaction amongst the donors in our country in that they know that when they donate, it is going to reputable groups of people who are prepared to have accountability and transparency, and who have nothing that they are not prepared to have come under the scrutiny of the Government or the Charities Commission, as it might be. We will see that there will be a very robust and significant community of people who are working not only with the donated funds but amongst their own volunteer group seeing these sorts of organisations prosper and continue to succeed. It is my great pleasure to continue to support what I believe to be a very good piece of legislation. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : It is my great pleasure to take this call on behalf of the Green Party. New Zealanders are very generous people. According to a report commissioned by Philanthropy New Zealand, it is estimated that ordinary New Zealanders donated $1.5462 billion last year. Individual people actually gave just over that amount personally. In total what was given was $2.6 billion, and that includes the grants from trusts, foundations, and businesses that have also been making donations. It all adds up to about 1.35 percent of our national GDP given to charities. According to the Charities Commission, there are 23,000 registered charities in New Zealand. That is just the registered ones; that is not including the ones like the National Council of Women, which has been denied registration because of the narrow definition of “charitable purpose”. So it is without a doubt that New Zealanders are generous.

The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill emerged 2 years ago because there was concern that there was a lack of clarity about how much of that personal giving was being siphoned off to professional fund-raisers while donors remained unaware. The stated purpose of the bill is to increase transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses that collect funds on behalf of registered charities. I actually have not been able to find out how much of the $1.5 billion that was donated personally last year was donated through professional fund-raisers. However, I hazard a guess that quite a few of those 23,000 charities use them.

I am sure everyone is aware that the Greens do support transparency and accountability, and we would certainly like a lot more of it. I have a bill in the ballot at the moment that is around creating transparency for donations in local elections, which might be a help.

We do believe that those who give money to charities need to be assured that the money they give is used for the purposes that it was given for. We are pleased to see the progression of this bill, and like other speakers I pay tribute to the Commerce Committee members and chairs who have guided the progression of this bill. As we have seen it progress through the House, and especially at the select committee, significant adjustments have been made to this bill so that this legislation is less prescriptive than it was on its first reading.

We are aware that some charities and community organisations do spend a proportion of the funds that they raise to raise funds, and we acknowledge that when those donations are regular payments, the cost of fund-raising reduces over time. As an example, I pay a regular fortnightly donation to Greenpeace New Zealand, and I am pretty sure that over the last 5 years that donation has accrued and more than covered the cost of the worker who hit me up for that donation in the first place.

On the whole we support the provisions of this bill that give discretion to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the Governor-General through an Order in Council to check how much of a fee a specific professional fund-raiser is receiving when they are acting for specific charities. We believe this is a better solution to the complexities that were identified during the select committee process. Those complexities included trying to figure out what percentage of a donation would trigger either a partial or a full disclosure of what percentage of the donation was being kept by the professional fund-raisers. So we welcome the bill’s move to shift responsibility for examining the detail of those arrangements to the Minister.

The legislation is timely. In the charitable and not-for-profit sector, especially for those that provide social services, the Government has already signalled that it wants to reduce costs and claw back on contracts. At the same time, there are savage cuts to our public services. In this environment, it is likely that in the near future New Zealanders will be called on to maintain that high level of giving. Some charities may rely on professional fund-raisers to help them raise the money they need to provide the services that the Government falls short on. It is these circumstances that also fuel the addiction that many organisations have to money gained from pokie trusts, and that is another bill that is up later.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I was on the Commerce Committee, which considered this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill—towards the end of its consideration, not during the earlier parts. I think it is fair to say that the greatest act of charity in this is actually the parties agreeing that this bill proceed, because although it does not do any harm, it actually does not do anything. It does not.

Louise Upston: Where’s your sense of charity, David?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Where is my sense of charity? Well, my sense of charity was just about overcome when I agreed that this bill should proceed at the select committee.

Phil Twyford: He’s exhausted it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have exhausted it. This bill does no harm but I would ask the member in the chair or Amy Adams to take a call and tell us whether there have been any draft regulations made. Has there been any preparation made of any regulations that would give effect to this piece of legislation?

This piece of legislation now says one thing, and that is that it creates a regulation-making power to do something in the future. It does not do anything more than that. It does not say anything other than what it does in clause 4, which inserts a new clause 28A into the Fair Trading Act to make it explicit that third parties can be required to disclose the amount of the donation that is going to them.

The Fair Trading Act already makes it clear—and this is in the select committee report—that regulation-making powers exist under the Fair Trading Act. So that would have allowed regulations to be required to be made about the percentage of the funds that was donated to charities that was going to somewhere other than the charity. What the Fair Trading Act does not allow is a requirement that the disclosure be made by the third party who is collecting the donation. So it is a pretty narrow point that is being covered by the regulations here.

The legislation, as it came to the select committee, tried to do this by way of provisions in the operative part of the legislation, rather than in subsidiary regulations. There was a requirement, according to the version that came to the select committee, that if the proportion being retained was less than 50 percent, then the collector had to disclose that there was a portion of the donation being hived off, but was not required to disclose what the proportion was. But if it was more than 50 percent, then they had to show how much of it was being hived off.

It became apparent—as the Greens have already indicated—that that did not work in respect of some of the donations where the first donation might be one of a regular weekly donation, every week, essentially for ever. They did not know how that would work in practice, and therefore they opposed it. So the select committee agreed that although these complexities had to be worked out in the future, the committee was not in a position to work out those complexities. The promoter of the bill—with respect, Amy Adams—had not worked out how those were going to be worked in practice, and so no one has done the drafting to work out how that will be attacked in practice.

Although this legislation does no harm, it barely passes muster as to what should be passed in the House. Were we being less than charitable at the select committee, I think that Opposition members at least would have said that this was fatuous and did not actually rate passing into law as a statute. But given that we were charitable at the time, and given that we wanted to help Amy Adams on her aspirations into Cabinet—and we were successful in that regard—we decided that we would be charitable, as well.

So I would ask the member in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, to advise whether any drafting has been made of the regulations so as to overcome the complexities that could not be cured in the bill, and that led to the bill abandoning the attempt to do it by way of primary legislation, and leaving it to the secondary legislation—the regulation-making power—to sort these issues out. If there has been any work done, I would like to know. I certainly have not seen any drafts. That would be influential for me as to whether I should grant my vote for this next reading of the bill. At least there would be an intention to actually put this into practice.

It seems to me to be a worthless waste of money causing the cost of new statutes to be printed throughout the land, only for it to lie dormant on the statute book. So would the member in the chair please advise whether there is any intention on the part of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to promulgate regulations.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : New Zealand First is also happy to support the amended Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I might say though, to begin with, that the name is a little bit unfortunate. Using the term “soliciting for donations” is probably not quite appropriate. I really think it should be something like “fund-raising”, or along those lines. However, I think that the important part, of course, is that this bill is now being changed very radically. I think that is a good thing.

The original bill clearly had some problems. It was very complex, and it was very difficult to work out how the various percentages would apply. I am a member of a charitable trust board in Christchurch that exists exclusively to raise money for donation to other charities. When I looked at the bill as it originally was, I thought that we had some expenses that we had to deduct, but no profits. When I looked at the complexity of the original bill, I thought: “Well, where on earth are we going to fit in that?”. I think that was one of the problems with it. When some of the charitable organisations that exist in the community looked at it, if it had been enacted, then they would have had a lot of trouble working out where they fitted in and what their liabilities were. Of course, that means it is bad law, because law that is not readily understandable and not readily applicable to people so that they can comply with it is not good law and should not really proceed.

So it was that complexity that I think was the main problem with it. I also think that it had huge holes in it, so that people with mischievous intent would have been able to avoid the legislation, if that is what their intention was. But it was also too inflexible, because, of course, any amendment would have had to come through the whole system of the House. That would have taken time and it would have been difficult.

So I really do applaud the Commerce Committee for recommending these changes. I think that the amended bill, which provides for the four areas of regulation, is definitely the way to go. Other speakers have also mentioned why they think that is appropriate, as well. But I note that the regulations are to be made for prescribing the disclosure requirements of information, prescribing the manner of disclosure, prescribing how the financial benefit must be calculated and expressed, and specifying any financial benefit that the fund-raiser is required to disclose. All of that is fine, but I do wonder whether it goes far enough. When you think about what the intention is, or what the intention perhaps should be, it really is not just about transparency. That is very important, and I agree with that and so does New Zealand First. We do want to see more regulation around this difficult area.

But perhaps what it could have done too is to specify some limitation about what could be deducted from charitable donations for expenses and for profits—and perhaps only by way of guidelines so, again, it would not be too inflexible. If the guidelines were then exceeded, perhaps the regulation should require that that be stated to the person giving the donation. In this way we would be able to influence, without too much prescription, how much should be removed from charitable donations to cover the cost of expenses and profits of those who fund-raise. That is something that if I had been on the select committee, I would have liked to argue for. It is too late now, of course, to do that. But perhaps when the Fair Trading Act is revised, as it is intended to be shortly, some consideration could then be given to that kind of concept. I think that is actually more important than the disclosure requirements that we see in the amended bill.

However, those regulations are needed. When we think about some of the sophisticated ways that fund-raising happens these days, such as online donations, automatic donations, and all of that sort of thing, and, most particularly, the sophisticated way—sometimes misleading, I think—that soliciting for donations is carried out, then there is no doubt at all that regulation of this kind is needed, so that people do get a fair go. As everybody in the Chamber knows, New Zealand First stands first and foremost—

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) : I did want to come down to the Chamber tonight and take a call in the Committee stage of what began life as a bill in my name, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, and has now been so ably picked up by my colleague Michael Woodhouse, who is shepherding the bill through this Parliament.

I want to just reflect a little bit on the genesis of the bill and where it came from, the thinking in bringing it to the House, and where we find it now with the report back from the Commerce Committee. The original concern for me in this space came about in listening to a report on the radio talking around recent fund-raising or a recent audit into the work of a particular charity—I will not name it, out of fairness—where more than 80c in every dollar that had been collected on its behalf never made it anywhere near the charity. Now, let me make this really clear. We are not talking about the costs of charity and running organisations. We are not talking about the normal good work and administration overheads that go in within charities. We are talking about 80c in every dollar that hard-working New Zealanders gave never getting anywhere near the charity that the donors thought they were giving to. That is a rort. It is a rort. When I give money to charities, and when other members of this House give money to charity, as I know we all do, we fully expect that the bulk of that money, if not all of the money, will go to the charity we anticipate will receive it. When I started looking into the area, though, I found, actually, that in some cases the problem was worse. In a number of situations, with what are often called “chuggers” on the street, the charity muggers, 100 percent of the funds—100 percent—often did not make it to the charity. It is not unusual for some professional fund-raising firms to keep the full first year of regular donations—

Andrew Little: Well, that’s not 100 percent.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —the full first year of donations—before they gave anything to the charity, if the donor continued giving past that time. A lot of donors will say: “Well, I will give to this charity for a year, and then I will support that one and I will support the other.” They have no way of knowing that possibly nothing they have contributed from their salaries has gone to the charity. I have got no issue at all—and I want to make this really clear—with charities using professional fund-raising firms. I have no issue with firms running a profit for business by collecting on behalf of smaller charities that do not see the value in doing it for themselves. That makes perfectly good sense, and during the select committee process I sat and heard most of the submissions. Absolutely we can accept that that is a valid approach for charities to take—to not do this in-house. There is nothing in this bill that is intended to stop reputable, honest, transparent firms contracting to charities to do this work out of house, and I absolutely want to make it clear that this is not anti - professional fund-raisers. What this is is anti the element in society that saw this as a way to set up a bank of telephones somewhere, get on the phone, say: “We are raising money for this. Won’t you give?”, and, frankly, ripping off New Zealanders. This bill is about protecting consumers, but it is also—as my colleagues have so ably said in this debate tonight—about putting transparency back into the sector. A number of people came up to me during the process when this bill was being debated and said: “Do you know what? I have lost faith in giving to charities, because I don’t know where my money gets to.” There are issues, obviously, around the auditing and regulation of charities. I think that area has made incredible progress over the last few years, and that is certainly well in hand, but it left a gap between when you gave your money and the time it ever got anywhere near that registered charity. That is what this bill is intended to address.

I want to address the last two speakers. Mr Parker suggested that the bill did not do anything, and then Mr O’Rourke suggested that, frankly, it did too much. So the answer to it is this. Initially we tried to provide this in primary legislation to make a very clear approach. During the process, what became clear was two things: this did need to be a reactive, flexible tool—and I accept that—and primary legislation is never a good place to put in place fixed rules that are going to need to be able to be flexible and reactive. What we also found out, though, was that, actually, there was no way to do this without changing the law. There was no way to give the Ministry of Consumer Affairs the power to protect consumers in this area of law without making a change to primary law. So to Mr Parker, I would simply say that if you think this bill does nothing, you do not understand consumer law.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon AMY ADAMS: My apologies, Mr Chair. Without this bill, there is no ability to protect consumers from the impact of unscrupulous rip-off merchants. I have been very proud to be associated with this bill. I thank the House for its support to date, and the givers of New Zealand support it too.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) : It certainly is an unorthodox approach to lawmaking to pass a primary piece of legislation that basically hands to the Minister of Consumer Affairs the unfettered right to write regulations to deal with a problem. I do not think—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In a private member’s bill.

PHIL TWYFORD: That is right—in a private member’s bill. I do not think the Hon David Parker was being too uncharitable when he described in less than flattering tones the final product of this extensive piece of work by the member Amy Adams and by the Commerce Committee. It is a strange thing to bring, effectively, a hollow bill to the House that hands to the Minister the ability to write regulations to solve the purported problem. It is pretty clear, reading the report that goes with this member’s bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, that the committee was overcome by the complexity. If that is the case—if it was overcome by the complexity of this issue—it might have been a bit more sensible to go back to the drawing board, rather than proceed with this hollow bill.

I want to focus on two issues in particular, following on from the member’s contribution. The cost of donation is the critical factor in this. The cost of donation is the key factor that this bill is setting out to regulate. But the reality is that for almost all fund-raising work in New Zealand today, when you make that first phone call, that first direct-mail letter, or that first conversation on the street, that is the beginning of what the charity hopes will be a lifelong relationship with the donor, and in all cases that first contact with the donor, the first donation, is always very expensive. What I would like to know is why this bill does not cover direct mail, because, actually, what most charities do is capture their donors, their prospects, for the first time through direct-mail fund-raising. It is the first cheque that gets written or the first credit card transaction that is the beginning of the lifelong donor relationship. The cost of that direct-mail transaction, for most charities, is about 100 percent. Most charities would consider that to be money well spent—if they could capture a donor with that first donation, at a cost of 100 percent. So why is that not included in this bill? I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that fund-raising works and the way that the fund-raising business model for almost all charities in this country works, and that misunderstanding is captured in this bill and the so-called complexity that led to a non-bill being brought to this House.

The other thing that is inexplicable to me is why the bill focuses on face-to-face fund-raising and telemarketing. Why not charitable events? Charitable events are one of the main ways that charities strike up a relationship with new donors. The cost ratio for charitable events is generally very, very high—far higher than the cost ratio for street-based, face-to-face fund-raising or telemarketing. So why does the bill not include charitable events within its ambit? I invite the member in the chair, Michael Woodhouse, to explain why this bill does not cover fund-raising events or direct-mail fund-raising, because in the fund-raising business model that almost every charity in this country uses those two things are just as important as, actually, or more important than, street-based, face-to-face fund-raising or telemarketing.

I know Labour members are supporting this bill, and it is out of a sense of charity, I say to members. No one disagrees with the principles of accountability, disclosure, and transparency. But I am sad to say that this bill is an example of woolly thinking and, really, it needs further work.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I thank honourable members for their contributions so far. I think there have been a couple of issues raised that are worthy of addressing. I think the first one I really have to address is probably the least charitable call I have heard in this Chamber for a long time, and that was from the Hon David Parker. I do think that it really is against the spirit of this debate and this bill, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill, to be quite so uncharitable about a bill that has very noble purpose.

I would accept something of a rebuke for the fact that the bill did have to be substantially amended were it not for the fact that the speech came from the Hon David Parker. More experienced members will well remember, as I am sure Dr Nick Smith will, that member bringing to the Committee of the whole House in 2008 the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preferences) Bill with 785 amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper, which went through absolutely no democratic process, completely rewriting that bill after 1,000 other amendments went in 2 days before the closure of submissions—completely re-engineering the bill. He may well have a very good justification for that, but I will not accept the rebuke from that member on this bill.

He also talked very uncharitably about this being a worthless waste of money. Ms Curran and Mr Twyford also said that it does no harm, so they will support it. Well, I think that lacks something, actually. If Labour members think this is a worthless waste of time, they should actually put their votes where there mouths are and vote against the bill. I would be quite happy to have that challenge laid down. I do not mind that, but the bill went through select committee under the very able Hon Lianne Dalziel, and it recommended that it be passed, so let us stop talking about it as a worthless waste of time.

I think it is very helpful to look at the case for change, and it was somewhat well articulated by the Hon Amy Adams. I think it is also worth referencing the Charities Commission and the work that it did in 2008 to survey charitable givers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that there appear to be strangers in the Chamber. We are currently on a member’s bill, and there is not the provision on a member’s bill for officials to be in the Chamber. There appear to be people sitting on the bench reserved for Ministers’ officials.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I will seek some advice on the issue.

Hon Tau Henare: Can we carry on while you look for an answer?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think we will carry on in the meantime, while we are checking this out.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, give us a ruling. You can’t do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The issue is being checked. I am advised that the member in charge of the bill is entitled to have officials.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member in charge of a bill who is not a Minister cannot have officials. Officials are Government officials; they are not members’ officials.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I have been advised that members may have advisers. So I have been guided, and the situation is that members are allowed to have advisers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I seek an assurance that these are the member’s advisers, and that they are not departmental officials.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to the point of order, I can assure the honourable member that they are advisers to me who happen to work for a Government department. But they have provided advice, as they did to the select committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I can speak to you as a matter of record that during the Labour period of Government I had a member’s bill in respect of the engineering profession, and in exactly the place where the officials are sitting today, with the Labour Government’s consent at the time, I had sitting in exactly that place officials from the department as well as from the Institution of Professional Engineers, consistent with the Standing Orders. What is taking place today is no different from what occurred during the period when Labour was the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The trouble with the last submission you just heard was, and is, that if there was no objection raised at the time, that does not give it status as a precedent in this Chamber. We need to know precisely who they work for now, and we have not heard that.

Hon Chester Borrows: It appears to me, Mr Chair, that you have ruled on this matter, and people seem to be taking issue with that ruling from their seat without getting to their feet.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have sought advice on it, because I am not sure myself of the position with the officials who are sitting in the Chamber.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to the point of order, I am pleased to advise the Committee that the people providing advice to me are employees of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. They have provided advice to the Commerce Committee in the 49th Parliament, and will continue to advise the Minister of Consumer Affairs when the bill is passed into law as to the framing of the regulations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek a point of clarification. The member in the chair has not told us what we want to know. He has given some explanation—

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s not question time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, in your case it should be.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I say to members on my right that when a point of order is being taken, it is heard in silence, and there is no interjection whatsoever, and to the member that points of order are to be terse and to the point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The terse point I wish to make is: who are they employed by now? Not what advice have they given in the past, but, as of right now, who are they in the employ of: the Minister or the department?

Hon Simon Bridges: The right honourable member did not raise a point of order, and you should not rule on it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): At the moment we are seeking some advice. I have in front of me a situation regarding the admittance of strangers to the Chamber, and it quite clearly states that “To the right: … a person invited by a member in charge of a Member’s bill, a local bill, or a private bill, to advise that member on the bill;”. In this case, that is what we have.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which Standing Order is it?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is covered under Ancillary Rules to the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, but someone’s got to make the rules—

Hon Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member Trevor Mallard shouted twice from his seat, asking you questions without asking to be called, and not standing, yet you seemed to engage with him on that. Could we have some dignity in the Chamber, please?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. This comes from “Rules for Admission to the Chamber, Lobbies and Galleries of the House of Representatives during Sittings of the House, made by the Speaker pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House”. That is where it comes from, and I am assured that the people here sitting behind us have the right to be here.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is a very timely reminder to thank the advisers who have given advice not only to me but also, firstly, to the Hon Amy Adams, in the initial stages of the bill, and, secondly, to the Commerce Committee—and now me—for the outstanding advice that they have provided and continue to provide.

Andrew Little: So where are the draft regulations?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am coming to that—patience. I just, firstly, want to address the initial point, which was the case for change. The Charities Commission conducted two surveys of public trust and confidence in charities, and in those it noted “an increasing public concern over the fundraising techniques of charities and a reduction in confidence in the charities sector.” In particular, 34 percent of respondents in 2008 reported high levels of trust that charities ensure a reasonable proportion of donations get to the end cause, and at least 38 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “Charities use more dubious fundraising techniques these days.” I think the Hon Amy Adams gave us a couple of very compelling reasons why this legislation is very important.

Labour members are free to decide what they do with that, but what I have heard in two previous calls is that it cannot be in primary legislation, and it should not be in regulation, so what they are really saying is that this cannot be fixed. Yet this is a matter of very important public interest to those who give to charities.

I also want to touch on the issue that Mr Parker raised. I may have misheard him, but I thought I heard him say that the Fair Trading Act already provides for regulation powers in this respect, but in fact that was not the advice of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which told the Commerce Committee that the Fair Trading Act would have to be amended to specifically allow for disclosure about third-party collectors, as section 27(1) currently does not allow that. So there is definitely a need, there is definitely a public interest, and there is definitely an improvement to the environment in which people provide charitable giving.

To the question asked about whether or not there are draft regulations that have been made, the answer is no, but they will be advanced over the next 12 months. The bill–

Andrew Little: Oh! All this lack of public confidence and no regulation.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: If they will listen they will get the right advice. They asked the question, but do not seem to be prepared to listen for the answer. The bill provides for the Minister to consult—in fact, it requires the Minister to consult—with affected parties before the regulations are drafted.

Andrew Little: Regulations can be made without consultation.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, that is not what it says. I will provide the necessary position for the member. It says somewhere that there is an obligation on the Minister to consult, albeit that that Minister’s failure to consult does not necessarily invalidate the regulation. That is a way of framing regulations that is quite customary. It happened under the Labour Government; I cannot give you an immediate example, but that is quite a normal way of framing regulations. In any event, I am sure the honourable member Charles Chauvel will have something to say to that when it gets to the Regulations Review Committee.

Although we have not drafted regulation yet, I have sought advice anticipating the question as to what the regulation might look like. In fact, there are precedents around the world for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in advising the Minister as to what that might be. The UK model has what is known as a solicitation statement, which requires fund-raisers to state the institution that they are fund-raising for, whether there is more than one charity, the names of those charities, how the fund-raiser’s remuneration in connection with the appeal is to be calculated, and the amount if it is known. In Australia there are a variety of processes under regulation that are a bit different. In Victoria, collectors must disclose how much they are paid to collect. That is probably the intention that the member introducing the bill had when she talked about the 20 percent and 50 percent thresholds. In New South Wales, collectors are simply prohibited from retaining more than 50 percent of the funds raised. In Tasmania they use the term that the benefit cannot be “manifestly excessive”. So there are quite differing ways to do that. My own view—and it will actually be up to the Minister of Consumer Affairs, in any event—is that the UK model is probably the pathway that we should explore. I think it provides the comprehensive statement that we need, but it is not overly prescriptive, and indeed it talks about not being overly prescriptive.

The last thing I just want to touch on in respect of the things that have been raised is the timeliness of this, and I have spoken with the Minister of Consumer Affairs. It is important that we do not let this drift. I think there is a high level of public interest, and he has indicated to me that he is quite willing to get advice on this in a timely manner and that the regulation should be drafted, consulted on, and passed into regulation in the next 12 months. I thank the Minister for his commitment to doing that, because, as I say, this is very much a matter of public interest.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : Thank you, Mr Woodhouse, for clarifying the area of regulations. I just want to bring back up a point in the debate around why this Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill was brought to bear in the first place. What it has done, despite the protestations of members opposite, is raise the level of awareness and the level of conversation around this very important issue. We have heard tonight from members around this Chamber that there are over 25,000 charities in this country, to which members of the public donate in excess of $1 billion. Those members—at least the members whom I speak to on the streets of Maungakiekie—who want to have trust and confidence in the charities that they donate to say that they want some level of accountability and some level of transparency in what they are donating and where that money is going.

In the Commerce Committee we heard some submissions from various charities—and I see the Hon Lianne Dalziel is here—and, to be fair, we grappled with the way that this bill would address the issues that were raised both in the public oral submissions and in the written submissions. We grappled primarily with the way that we wanted to see some primary legislation that would directly address the issues that have been canvassed here tonight. We tried and we tried, and we did not quite get there. That was disappointing, but I think it is mischievous for members opposite to claim now that this bill is hollow, because it is not hollow; it actually has regulation-making powers. I have already canvassed in this House my reluctance to use regulation-making powers. As lawmakers we should at least have a go at defining and describing the types of laws that people in New Zealand should adhere to and obey. But we could not get there. The regulation-making powers are in place, and I have already stated my reluctance for that to go ahead. Mr Woodhouse has pointed out various models of approach to making those regulation powers work. I certainly have confidence that the Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Hon Simon Bridges—and he is here tonight—will carefully consider this, that he will consult widely, and that he will take upon his conscience the representations of those who are directly affected by this bill.

I think one of the more compelling submissions that we heard was from Greenpeace and various others who stated that it was not a one-off donation that they were receiving but actually a trail of donations, and that in order to attain those long-term donors they needed to invest in marketing, in public relations, and in those people who would—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Maybe a dotcom website.

Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —a dotcom website—take on these donations and would encourage and attract long-term donors. That point was very well made, and I think, in good conscience, we resisted some of the desire to go ahead and regulate in this way.

I think, also, the points raised by Mr Twyford are quite valid. He referred to direct mail. Mr Twyford did not actually state the online contributions that people make. The internet is taking over in terms of attracting donations to various charitable organisations. He also mentioned charitable events, which, again, are a different way of soliciting funds from potential donors and future donors. I take the point, but I think that Mr Twyford, who was not part of our select committee process, should actually look at the bill as amended. The bill actually incorporates some of those things. The regulation powers stated within the bill are wide enough to take on some of those different forms of donating moneys.

We cannot forget the mischief that this bill addresses. The honourable Minister Amy Adams referred to third-party organisations that use up 80 percent—although I have heard of other organisations that have chewed up 90 percent—of actual donations. I do not believe that the New Zealand public has trust and confidence—and I did not hear one member of the committee refer to them as having trust and confidence—in that type of operation.

This bill is to be commended. I encourage all parties in this Chamber to vote for this bill. Despite their protestations about it being hollow, I think it does address the issues. I have confidence that the Minister will put together regulation-making powers. There is a review of the Fair Trading Act, which will also go a long way towards addressing some of the issues in this area. I certainly speak in favour of this bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee stage of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. As the former chair of the Commerce Committee who was chairing the meetings that dealt with this particular piece of legislation, I thought it was appropriate to respond to a comment made by the member who has just resumed his seat, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. I think, to be fair—and actually I think my colleague Phil Twyford is correct in terms of the content—legislation that does not have substance within it is hollow. I cannot think of any other description for it. The reason it is hollow is that it was not possible in the framework of a member’s bill to deal with the substantive issues that needed to be dealt with in order to cover the issues that need to be addressed. We think that it is important. We on this side of the House do think it is important to address this issue. Do we think this is ideal? No, we do not. Are we supporting the bill? Yes, we are, but largely because it will sit in place only for a very short period of time, and it will be subsumed, as it were, by the consumer law review legislation that will travel its way through the House over the next wee while. I think that bill has already gone to a select committee. [Interruption] It has. During the context of that legislation, I think we will be able to see this matter addressed. In actual fact, we may never see the regulations passed under this bill.

It really came down to a point where there were two pieces of legislation that came to our select committee that were ahead of the consumer law review. It was decided that one of them would be held back and would basically sit within the review itself, and the other one—this one—in the name of the Hon Amy Adams, as she is now, she was very keen to progress. I think one of the main justifications for us agreeing to that request was the belief that there were some important public interest issues that should be put out there to increase people’s awareness. That would enable people to ask the question: “How much of my charity dollar is going to the charity?”. I think that one of the points that has been made several times over in the debate thus far is that there is often a considerable cost in getting that donor, who is then going to commit to donating for the rest of their life. There are people who continue to pay an ongoing tithing or something to a church, to a local charity, or to Greenpeace or something like that—

Phil Twyford: Oxfam.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL:—Oxfam—where there is a considerable amount of upfront cost. The agencies that do this work actually do charge a lot, but once you have got somebody basically hooked on a—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Regular payment.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: “Regular payment” are the words I was looking for.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would you like me to help you?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I would love your assistance. It would actually be a rare and unusual event for you to be giving me a hand, Trevor! Sorry. The point that I am making is that once you have got people on to regular payments, it actually operates on that inertia basis—that it actually is more trouble to go and end the automatic payment than it is to just carry on with the payment. I think it is a very important issue to bring to people’s attention, but I do not think people should get completely bogged down in the idea that just because there is a commercial operation that enables people to come into that giving programme that there is somehow something wrong with that, because I do not think that is the case. I think a lot of large charities internationally rely on those commercial operations to make that initial contact for them—and they get paid well for that—but then the benefits flow on to the organisation for a long time to come.

I do not think we will ever see regulations passed under this legislation, but it has been a very useful exercise in order to bring public attention to an issue that is of concern, and that is how much of their money that they are giving for charity is actually going to the charity. And when you are actually making that donation in a very direct way, I think people are entitled to know the answer.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I just want to make three quick points, as we approach the end of the Committee stage, and I will start—

Phil Twyford: Why does the member think that?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —by addressing the contribution by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Well, I am quite sure that if members have other meaningful contributions to make, they will stand up. The first relates to the issue of hollowness. I would say that small is not hollow. The fact that the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is, even now, small—it was when it was introduced and it is now—does not make it hollow.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Substance.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: There is substance in it. The issue is certainly very important. I would also say that, yes, there was some complexity around the framing of the primary legislation that it was felt would be best addressed in the regulation, but that will not make the complexity go away. I know that the Commerce Committee did hear from fund-raising organisations that were not in support of this. I think there is an element of self-interest by those organisations in respect of the disclosure requirements that this regulation, when it is passed, will have. So I do not agree with Ms Dalziel that this regulation will not be put in place. I am quite sure that both I and the Hon Amy Adams will keep on the Hon Simon Bridges until those regulations are drafted, and that we will get there.

I think the member Sam Lotu-Iiga did address the issue that Mr Twyford raised about public disclosure of other types of fund-raising events, not just cold calling, and I draw members’ attention to new section 28A(1)(a)(iii) in clause 4, which does provide for a fund-raising event. They will fall within the description—

Phil Twyford: And direct mail?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And on direct mail I am advised that any requests that come from a third party will be covered. The member’s description in his call was a little unclear as to whether he was clearly articulating between direct mail that is done by charities themselves and that which is done by a third-party fund-raiser. If it is from a third-party fund-raiser, it will be covered by the disclosure requirements.

The last thing I want to say is in respect of the member Raymond Huo’s call in the second reading, where he raised the question about sanctions, and penalties for non-compliance. He mentioned the—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was Rajen.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Was it Rajen? I do apologise to Mr Huo. The member is quite right; it was Dr Rajen Prasad. He raised the question of where the sanctions are and where the penalties are. I can advise the Committee that, in fact, the primary legislation provides in section 40 for there to be penalties for contravention of the provisions of Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, and those penalties will apply to the regulation. They are onerous. For an individual there can be up to a $60,000 fine, and in the case of bodies corporate, which are most likely to be the agents that are covered by the regulation, a fine not exceeding $200,000. So it is a significant potential penalty for those who do not comply with the Fair Trading Act, and most appropriately so. So the sanctions are there. I thank members for their contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is—

Scott Simpson: I move that the question be now—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.

• Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

• Bill reported without amendment.

• Report adopted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): When we were last on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, Todd McClay was speaking and has 30 seconds remaining, if he wishes.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : Thirty seconds? I tell you what, I will toss you for it: heads I get a minute, tails I sit down right now. That is some of the problem we have with people who have problems with gambling in New Zealand. They do not know when to stop. In the remainder of my 30 seconds can I congratulate Mr Flavell on bringing this bill to the House and confirm that I and members of the Government will be supporting this being referred to the Commerce Committee. I look forward to many people from our constituency having their say on this issue and that we give it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; he has had 30 seconds.

DENISE ROCHE (Green) : I rise to take the call for the Greens on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Firstly, let me say that I applaud the intent of this bill. I am pleased that all the speakers so far, including the National members, are supporting this bill through its first reading and through to the Commerce Committee.

The Greens will be supporting this bill, because it addresses many of the problems associated with pokie machines in the community, in pubs and bars. It is totally appropriate that this is a bill from the Māori Party—kia ora, Mr Flavell—as Māori and Pasifika are most likely to be harmed by this type of gambling. In my maiden speech I said that gambling on pokie machines was the transfer of wealth from women to men, from the poor to the rich, and from the brown to the white. When one looks at who loses the largest amount of money on pokies and who benefits the most from the proceeds, this statement is clearly accurate.

Pokies are the most harmful gambling product we have in New Zealand. A previous chief executive officer of the Problem Gambling Foundation once described them as the crack cocaine of the gambling industry, and he is right. The industry itself preys on problem gamblers to ensure that it makes a profit, and it whitewashes this harm by distributing some of that profit, currently 37 percent, to the community through grants. The industry is cynically selective. It targets the poorest communities. Look around Remuera. There are hardly any pokie bars at all. But in Manukau, in Māngere, and in Ōtara they are far more prevalent. Currently there are in excess of 18,000 pokies in pubs and clubs in New Zealand, and every single one of them creates at least one problem gambler, and for every problem gambler there are between six and 12 others, mostly children, who are affected.

We support the provisions in this bill that give more control to communities to reduce the number of pokies in their areas. In places like Nelson, Christchurch, Waitakere, and Manukau communities have successfully lobbied their councils for a sinking-lid policy to gradually reduce the number of pokies in their areas. Whenever communities have been asked about this, they have said they do not want pokies proliferating throughout their neighbourhood. I guess that is why in Auckland it is incredibly insulting that the huge effort that communities have put into reducing pokies has been undermined by the Government, which wants to increase the number of pokies overall by selling our law so that the casino can have more pokies, in exchange for the convention centre. Pokies in pubs, pokies in casinos—they are both harmful and they are both dirty industries.

We will also be supporting the provisions in this bill to reduce gambling harm with player tracking and pre-commit cards. We definitely support the measures to call for 80 percent of the money from pokies to be distributed to the community and within the community from where the pokie money has been extracted. We certainly agree that spending some of that money on horse racing stakes is not a community purpose and should be stopped.

We are pleased to see an attempt to address the many rorts and frauds that have occurred over the distribution of funds from pokie trusts. Every week there is another dodgy deal outlined in the news, and it is obvious that the Department of Internal Affairs has difficulty in investigating and prosecuting them. When even Francis Wevers, who headed the Community Gaming Association, says—as he did last year—that the entire industry cannot be trusted and is engaged in suspect activities, then it is time to rein in the rorts and find a better way of controlling the flow of funds.

We will be supporting this bill. However, a word of warning. I have heard submissions on gambling policy at council level, and I predict that the select committee will be confronted with an organised campaign from the gambling industry to water down the provisions of the bill. There is a lot of money at stake here. Over the last year $867 million was spent on machines in our communities. We look forward to this bill cleaning up the sector. We have done it around tobacco sponsorship. We have proven that we can do it. We can have healthy communities where our people are not addicted to pokies and our communities are not addicted to pokie money. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : In the long history of this party, New Zealand First, we have never promoted gambling in this country. At all levels of reforms and changes, we have never taken that position. But the law of New Zealand does allow for gambling, and for certain types of gambling the Government is a significant beneficiary of such activity. But I want to say right now that I am hearing from certain members just how out of touch they are with the facts of this country, and how biased they are about certain industries.

Mr Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill purports to reduce harm caused by class 4 gambling, for example. It is New Zealand First’s submission that the bill is completely ineffective to achieve that purpose. There are many alternative forms of gambling available, all of which can have a negative impact on the problem gambler. There is an ever-increasing number of internet-based gambling sites, which though not necessarily legal are easily accessed by anyone with a home computer. These sites look to replicate casino and pokie gambling in the comfort of the home. It is all happening under the member’s very eyes now. They have the same potential to take money from the weak-willed, but give absolutely no benefit whatsoever back to the Government or the community, and this bill will do nothing to save people from themselves.

This bill is not about the proliferation of pokies. Let us comment on some specific provisions of the bill, which some members here need to acquaint themselves with, particularly since they say that the local communities to which they belong are where so much of it happens, but when they evince their views in this House they seem to understand very little. Clause 5 of the bill would remove racing from the authorised purposes that can benefit from pokie funds. This is a 32,000 people industry. Thousands more have an interest, in all manner of trades, from the person who fixes up the horses’ hooves, to the animal dentist, to the transporters, and to the people who go offshore to promote the industry. It is a $1.8 billion industry to the economy, it brings in $160 million of exports, and here is a group of members of Parliament with so little understanding of this darn economy and how it works and of some people’s livelihood as participants in a world-leading nation when it comes to the racing industry that all they want to do is smash it.

What percentage of pokie money was racing taking? Was it 4 percent or 6 percent? What was it?

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Tell us.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it was 6 percent. All the rest is going into the “Underpants-wearing Society of Remuera”, which does not support the racing industry, and all manner of other people whom the last speaker, Denise Roche, and the promoter of the bill are wanting to help somehow. But what about the thousands of young Māori who seek an aspiration in this industry, from the people who get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to the guy who is a jockey, like Michael Walker, who in Australia the other day rode a 150:1 outsider and got it home? It is someone’s lifeblood about which we speak.

The introduction of pokies had, and continues to have, a significant deleterious effect on TAB betting, which is the lifeblood of the racing industry, which is a multimillion-dollar export earner for this country. Who cares on the other side, the Government side? Racing should continue to be authorised for class 4 gaming purposes, because part of the real harm caused by pokies is the attack that they have allowed by silly decisions from Parliament that have reduced the TAB funding stream of racing. This is an industry in crisis, because the Government does not seem to understand what it is worth to this country.

Clauses 6(1) and 89 would require that at least 80 percent of funds be distributed in the area where they were raised. We agree with that, but we do not think the smart thing to do here is to go and give it to the local bodies, which are accused every day of putting up rates, and here comes one more expenditure, one more administrative cost, that goes to local government. Government members will go back to their clinics and sympathise with the local government politicians about rates, but here they are with one more nanny State imposition. Why? Because they are out of touch. They cannot trust the charities, cannot trust the Tindall Foundation, and cannot trust these industries all over the country that are doing such great work. If there are rorts, surely the Department of Internal Affairs has fixed them up by now—if members of Parliament were aware of what was going on in their community. The days of the rorts are long gone, and what we heard in that last speech—this is a 10-minute speech, is it not?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, 5.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it should be. I will finish it off. I will conclude by saying this. Have I got 2 minutes to go?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I am sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Can I seek leave for the member’s speech to be extended for a couple of minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the Hon Winston Peters to have 1 more minute. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : That objection shows the level of charity from Nick Smith. I actually happen to disagree with a number of things that the Rt Hon Winston Peters said. I have a view that it is not appropriate to subsidise the racing industry out of the pokie machines. We have differed on that in the past, but I think what we can say about the member is that he has been consistent in his support of the racing industry, not only from this source but in a number of different ways as well, including the taxation approach to it.

I say to the member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that I certainly support its referral to the Commerce Committee. I think there are a lot of discussions to be had there. I predict that there will be a lot of submissions and a lot of discussion. But the question that the member has to answer at the end of this process when he is speaking in reply is why he has left out of this the people who do the biggest pokie rip-offs in the country, the people who take the most money out, the people who take the money out and give it to John Banks, which he does not declare. I want to know why he has excluded from this legislation the massive amount that the casinos take out of our community, not only in the pokies but in the rest of it. I want to know why that member is not making people like John Banks, who receive that money and do not declare it, front up and be transparent.

I would expect in a bill that is really promoting transparency about the expenditure of gaming funding that instead of a massive amount of the money going offshore, as it does with the profits of Skycity, it would provide for it to be spent in New Zealand in the way and with the methods that are set out in this bill—or actually in ways that could be quite a lot better, which I think other people have thought about over some time. What should also happen is that when people receive money from those organisations, that should be transparent as well, rather than sticking it in their pocket and pretending, as John Banks did, that he did not know about the donation, when clearly people like Len Brown were honest and straightforward and made declarations to that effect.

There are lots of ways that we could improve this area, and I agree with Winston Peters that people who are in touch with the community will know that things are a lot cleaner than they used to be. I think all of us who have been around for some time and in touch with the community know some pretty rough stories: the rugby club that used to get grants from the charity associated with one pub only. It got a massive grant and generally half of it went back under the table to the publican, and there was also an obligation to buy beer at non-discounted rates from that particular pub. So although on the surface things looked like they were right—the money was being paid out; the audit trail went that way—what happened was that we did not see the kickbacks that were occurring either directly or as a result of pricing for alcohol that was not at the level that it should have been.

A lot of that has been tidied up with some of the larger gaming trusts that have now put together more thorough audit processes. And there is, I think, a willingness for people to blow the whistle on that sort of arrangement when publicans, who used to be the main beneficiaries, do that.

But we still have in New Zealand a lot of hotels that are more or less reliant on the pokie machines in order to survive rather than the food and liquor that they sell. They effectively use the pokies as a subsidy for keeping an institution open that could not survive otherwise. My view is that that is, just as I think it is for racing, an inappropriate subsidy for an organisation, because it comes from the poorest. In the end I am going to listen to John Banks and see what he says about that—

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

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I am pleased to stand to speak on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by congratulating Mr Flavell on bringing this very good piece of legislation to the House. National is supporting this bill going through to the Commerce Committee and I look forward to seeing the submissions process.

Gambling can do a great harm to our society, but we cannot blame those people who gamble sensibly for entertainment. As I understand, the bill helps local authorities to create rules to control gambling. They will have tools and powers to decide what types of rules they want and up to what degree they want to go. The purpose of the bill is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by the gambling, and ensure that money from the gambling benefits the community, and to assist the community’s involvement in decisions regarding gambling.

We are concerned about the gambling problem and our policy is to minimise the harm caused by gambling. There is not enough money in the world to keep someone on the gambling table. Gambling makes a mockery of hard work. Gambling machine venues tend to be overly represented in lower-income communities and town centres. In South Auckland the lower-income population, especially Māori and Pacific Islanders, are effectively being targeted and often severely harmed by them. It is very important that we address this problem.

This bill seeks to overcome these areas of harm in locations with excessive numbers of pokies by enabling authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. It especially requires all pokie-machine trusts, corporate societies, and other distributors of the proceeds of the gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of these funds generated by the gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back to the charitable organisations that are meeting priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue.

However, this would mean that groups in the poorer areas, including rural areas, might miss out on the funding if there are limited machines in these areas. Only a small proportion of pokie gamblers’ losses distributed in grants for community benefit goes into the same communities that generate them. This is because the majority of the gamblers’ losses go to pay machine site rentals, machine maintenance, trust fees for pokie trust members, and other administration costs. Gambling losses occasionally go into grants made to organisations based in other local authorities altogether—sometimes even in the other island or areas.

Gamblers who are having problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines have problems keeping track of the amount of their losses. Gamblers could more often be able to manage their gambling if pokie-machine venue operators were obliged to keep track of each gambler’s overall losses and time spent on gambling machines through using common technological devices like player tracking systems. This bill proposes making such player tracking devices and pre-commit cards a required condition for a pokie machine venue operator’s licence, as issued by the Department of Internal Affairs. I know Mr Flavell has worked hard to draft this bill, and I congratulate him once again and commend this bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just realised that there has not yet been, at least amongst the Labour Party members, a circulation of proxy forms for the personal vote. Casting my mind back to the Business Committee, I cannot remember discussion at the Business Committee on this particular question. I thought it might be a good idea—because I have warned our whip that the nature of gambling matters, casino matters, and pokie matters have always been conscience votes—to make it clear that there will certainly be a call for a personal vote on this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I am just getting some advice. We will carry on.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am happy to take the call while you consider that matter. I very happily speak in favour of this piece of legislation, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. The lack of progress the House has made, in the time that I have been here, on dealing with gambling harm reduction measures has been of concern to me for some time. We had a debate fairly early on in my time as a parliamentarian when we discussed the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), which was, at the time, in the name of the then Minister, Richard Worth. It has not made any progress at all, I do not think, since Mr Worth left Parliament, but we had a useful exchange of ideas around some of the issues that should be addressed. We should not be blind to the fact that gambling causes significant harm in our local communities. I think the House does need to reflect on where we have got to over the course of several decades since pokie machines were introduced into New Zealand.

We do have a situation now where a number of community groups rely on the proceeds of gambling in order to fund themselves. We are talking about sports clubs, charities, and a number of groups whose contributions we value that are now relying on the proceeds of gambling in order to function. I actually think there is a very salient comment made by the Methodist Church in an opinion piece in the Christchurch Press recently. I want to quote directly from it: “No decent society should fund its sports, recreation and commercial activities from the pockets of its poorest citizens.” I think that that is quite a legitimate thing for it to say. It is a sentiment I strongly agree with. Of course, there is no instant solution that we can reach here. I think this bill is a useful contribution to the debate that we should be having, but we can certainly make sure we do not make the situation any worse.

I think it is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to accept the fact that we do have a problem with gambling in New Zealand at the moment, and we have a problem with the system that we have set up for gambling at the moment. We can, at least, not make it any worse. That is why I am very concerned that although the National Government sheds crocodile tears around problem gambling today and votes in favour of this bill, it is about to go out there and do a deal with the biggest gambling company in this country—the biggest gambling outfit in this country—Skycity, to build a convention centre that will be funded by the poorest citizens in our country. This will be funded by the poorest citizens in our country.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is the man who spent a week at Skycity! Talk about hypocrisy.

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right, I did spend a week at Skycity, because I wanted to find out firsthand exactly what was going on there, and I did find out by spending the time there. I can say that having seen what goes on there, I do not think that the decision that National is taking to expand the gambling opportunities at Skycity, in exchange for its sweetheart deal for a convention centre, is the right thing to do. In fact, there are other options on the table there. John Key stopped officials working on other options to fund the convention centre because of the dodgy deal he reached with Skycity Casino. I think that is fundamentally wrong. It is morally corrupt. I think it is a disgrace that National, whilst shedding crocodile tears in favour of this legislation—which is good legislation—is then going to go ahead, on the other hand, and expand gambling opportunities at Skycity Casino. I do not think that is right. I think that is fundamentally wrong, and I think that the Government should be ashamed of itself for that.

The Labour Party stands behind our track record when it comes to gambling. In 2002 we did take steps to reduce the harm from gambling in New Zealand, including introducing the sinking lid on pokie machines that John Key now says is going to reduce the number of pokie machines we have overall, even though National is increasing them at Skycity. Well, actually, I reckon that is the wrong position for him to take, because we should have fewer pokie machines around the country. That does not mean that we should reduce them in one area so that he can prop up his mates at Skycity by putting in more pokie machines at Skycity. I think that is fundamentally wrong and I think the Government should be ashamed of itself.

Problem gambling causes huge social harm. It causes huge social harm. I do not believe that we should be expanding gambling opportunities and expanding the opportunities for that harm to take place so that the Government can get a convention centre, which it could get in other ways. In fact, there was work going on, commissioned by John Key, until he got a better offer from Skycity. And then he cancelled consideration of any other option for a convention centre in Auckland—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Hon Trevor Mallard brought up [Interruption]—I am ruling—the matter of a conscience vote. I have sought advice. The practice that has been adopted is for members to raise the matter of a conscience vote in the Business Committee in order that the Speaker may consider whether a conscience vote should be held and advise the whips accordingly. As this practice has not been followed in this case, I do not believe that a personal vote should be held on this occasion. I am very mindful of Standing Order 141, which talks about how “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on a party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” So that is the ruling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to contest not your decision, because I think in respect of Standing Order 141 there is going to be no doubt about the closeness of it, but I think it is important that we do not yet accept the rationale that you have used—that is, the practice of bringing matters to the Business Committee. The Business Committee is written into the Standing Orders in a number of ways, and there are some rights and obligations of members with regard to the Business Committee and there have also been some customs that have developed. But the right of a member to indicate that for them a matter is a conscience matter, to address that to the Speaker in this House around the time of a vote and after the party vote—Standing Order 140—and to ask for a personal vote appears, in the Standing Orders, to be untrammelled. I accept it is a two-part thing: the Speaker has to decide it is a conscience issue, and then it has to be close. I think the Standing Orders are clear on this, and I think it would be unfortunate if there was a ruling that stood that said that, effectively, because the matter had not been raised with the Speaker or it had not gone to the Business Committee, the rights of members under Standing Orders, which are very clear on the face of them, were not going to be upheld.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : Just in considering the points that the member Mr Mallard has made, I wonder whether you would also consider Speaker’s ruling 69(6) from a former Speaker, Mr Kidd, who said the fact that the House on a party vote might divide rather closely does not in and of itself constitute sufficient reason for there to be a personal vote. It is clearly not intended by the Standing Orders that there should be one just because it is close.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I might be getting my time wrong, but I think Mr Kidd might have pre-dated the Standing Orders that we are talking about. I think I can almost remember the circumstance, and it was not an area of conscience. It was not one of the traditional conscience areas. It was a debate where it was felt that there might have been a few members of the National Government who, at that time, did not support the particular line of the Government. It was probably a little bit before the member’s time, but in those days people had to line up and actually say what they said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I stand by the ruling I made before. But I just bring to members’ attention Standing Order 139, which clearly states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” That is Standing Order 139. It makes it very clear that the Speaker makes the decision. But the member is correct—we do not want to override that through the Business Committee, so that it takes precedence over what is in the Standing Orders. I accept what the member has brought to our attention, and, of course, it is always open for a member to call for a personal vote.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking clarification around that. Does it stand, then, according to that ruling, that once a determination has been made, say, for the first reading, that that determination is then deemed to continue through all phases, or is there an opportunity to check in with the Business Committee at the second and third readings, if it gets to that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The ruling that I am making now is not binding the House to a further position when we come to the Committee stage, or to the second and third readings.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) : I stand to support the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank Te Ururoa Flavell and the Māori Party for the work they have done on this bill.

The National Party is well aware of the harm from gambling for individuals, for families, and for communities. We are particularly interested to hear the submissions on this bill, because part of our election promise was to revise the 2003 Gambling Act. But the problem is that it is difficult to find an effective way to minimise the harm from gambling, because gambling, like prostitution, drinking, and maybe even smoking, has had a long history. Archaeological evidence tells us that the cavemen were keen gamblers, and that they used astragali, bones from animals, to play games of dice. You can even see pictures, in the cave paintings, of cavemen enjoying gambling. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, India, and even New World Native Americans enjoyed a game of dice. In fact, they thought the gods created those games of chance. When you look at Polynesia, gambling came from the sailing ships, with the explorers, the adventurers, the sailors, and the whalers. In fact, the missionaries had a pretty hard time trying to keep people in line, and focused on gambling, prostitution, and drinking. However, I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell says that Māori, before the European influence, had no interest in gambling and even had no words to describe it.

This bill focuses on one form of gambling, and that is electronic gambling, or the pokies. The pokies are already under strict control. So this bill is looking at further measures to protect individuals from problem gambling, reduce the number of pokies, extract bigger revenues from the ones that exist, better target where the money is spent, and find ways to help individuals control their gambling. I am keen to support any measures that would minimise harm from gambling, and will follow the comments of the submitters to the Commerce Committee with interest.

However, we do need to be aware that legalised gambling, the revenue from pokie machines, does good in our community. The money supports sports events, arts festivals, educational opportunities, and many more community events and services. So we need to look to find solutions to the problem. But I would hate to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater, and end up with a lose-lose situation where communities lose the revenue from the pokies, and the problem gamblers just end up spending on gambling somewhere else. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, this has always been a conscience issue for New Zealand First—for almost two decades now—and we see it as a conscience vote on this occasion.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I think we are getting ourselves into the possibility of some trouble here. I totally agree with the member. There have been gambling bills after gambling bills, and there have been lots of gambling bills where the House has been united, there has been agreement, and we have worked forward together. But where there have been divisions, there have been conscience votes and parties have split, because people do have different views. On this bill I gather that, other than New Zealand First, there is actually pretty broad agreement among most members of the House. I think it would be unfortunate if, without due consideration of that issue—and I accept that you made a suggestion earlier that it should have gone to the Business Committee, which is the practice, but it is not the Standing Order. What I am going to do—and I apologise to the Greens and to Mr Flavell—is seek the leave of the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We’ve still got another speaker yet.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. After the last speaker I will seek the leave of the House for the vote to be deferred in order for that matter to be considered in a considered way by the Speaker and to come back to the vote on this bill on the next members’ day. I am just giving notice of the fact so that members know that that is what I am going to do. Otherwise, frankly, we end up with confidence issues in the way the House is being run.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that, and we will look at that question following the right of reply. I call Te Ururoa Flavell.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order—if I could, Mr Speaker. So, trying to pick up on Mr Mallard’s point, will we be having an opportunity to discuss the question he has just raised after the closing speech?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just to finish the debate, you have 5 minutes in reply, and my understanding is that the Hon Trevor Mallard is going to seek leave for the vote to be postponed. That is a decision for the House at that time, but before we get to that point, I invite the member to exercise his 5-minute right of reply.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker—I understand that that question will be considered by way of a request from Mr Mallard. The question I am asking is whether there will be debate on that question at that time, or—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I thought I made it clear. My understanding is that Mr Mallard will seek leave for that purpose. So it is not debatable. If the member wishes to exercise his right of reply, I call Te Ururoa Flavell.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kia ora tātau katoa e hoa mā, tātau ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. Ā, i te tuatahi, ka mihi rā ki tēnā, ki tēnā mō te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i te roanga o ngā whā wiki pea kua hipa. He pai ngā kōrero ahakoa kai reira tonu ētahi paku rerekētanga, he pai tonu. Ko te mea nui kia kōrerohia ngā take, nō reira, me hoki au ki aua kōrero rā mō te wā poto.

[Greetings to us all this evening, fellow colleagues and members of Parliament. In the first instance, I gratefully acknowledge the point of view that each and every one contributed over the length of the past 4 weeks or so. Despite the fact that differences exist still, it is good and fine. The important thing is that issues are aired, so I will revisit those comments for a brief moment.]

Thanks, firstly, to all members who have contributed tonight. It is not as if I agree with all of the statements, but that is fine—that is the way it goes. I am pleased to reflect, firstly, very quickly on some of the statements made. Michael Woodhouse referred to the relationship accord that the Māori Party has with National. This bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, has been on the agenda for some time, and so we are happy that through our relationship accord it comes to the House and, hopefully, will be able to pass its first reading. The second thing refers, then, to Ruth Dyson, who talked about acknowledging, I suppose, that the issue of pokie machines and gambling at that level is very much an issue. That is well known. It has very much been a part of the statements that I have made in opening the debate.

Todd McClay talked about surveying his own people and our own people in Rotorua, and accepting that there is a desire on the part of many to have this particular debate, because it does open up wide-ranging views in respect of a number of issues. Although the bill is very much looking at reduction of harm from pokie machines, the connotations and the wording that have been picked up by members tonight are obviously far reaching.

I acknowledge my colleague Denise Roche, and in particular her statements about how some of these machines are placed only in certain communities and not others. There is an element of support and there is technology, I am told, around the player tracking and pre-commit cards, so that is helpful to know. Also, I acknowledge the issues she raised around 80 percent of the money going back to the community, which was also acknowledged by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I acknowledge the effects in terms of racing. The comments by Mr Peters on racing, I suppose, are understandable, bearing in mind that he is a former Minister of Racing, so I would expect that he does raise some of those issues. The other point that was raised by Denise Roche was the issue of some of the pokie trusts possibly being involved in some fraudulent activities.

I do want to reflect on one statement that Mr Peters made, and that is in respect of internet gambling. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The issue of internet gambling has certainly come to the fore, and we have to remember, however, that this bill was drafted up some 2½ years ago. The progress in respect of internet gambling has really taken off, I would suggest, over the last 2 years, because I did not hear about it even when we were drafting up this bill. I acknowledge that is an issue that hopefully will be raised through the select committee process. Mr Mallard talked about the big players, and I cannot give too much of a response. Suffice it to say that I would expect that through the select committee process, again, people will raise some of those issues.

There is not too much else to add, other than to thank all those for their contributions. I can say that I have had a number of lobby groups come to me in respect of their positions, from racing, through to the big trusts, through to the smaller trusts, and generally the feedback has been positive. Strangely enough, although they have a particular view about this bill, the views have been wide ranging, and I might say that there have been offers to provide some input into the developing of the bill. I am fairly clear that it does not solve every problem, but there is a way forward here, where it might be possible to deal with some of the issues that have been discussed behind closed doors in respect of the behaviour of some of the trusts. The transparency of some of the trusts is certainly an issue that has been raised, as is, for example, the involvement of the racing industry and money going off to the racing industry. So from a Māori Party perspective I am really pleased that we have had that tonight.

I am hoping that the bill is supported across the House, as it seems like the indications are. I am sure that we can find a way forward. I appreciate also my discussions that I have had with the Minister Chris Tremain around working together, following the select committee process, to look at trying to find some compromises, deal with the issues that have been raised through the select committee process, and hopefully come out at the end of it, before the end of the second reading, with a bill that matches up and deals with many of the issues raised not only tonight but simply by having them as a part of the bill. So with that regard, I commend this bill to the House. I am looking forward to the support of the whole House, and I look forward also to hearing the debate through the select committee process.

Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātau ngā kaikōrero, otirā, tātau i whakaputa kōrero i te pō nei, me te tūmanako ia, ka eke ki te taumata e wawatatia ana, i roto i ngā marama kai mua i te aroaro.

[Therefore, I am really grateful to each of us who contributed, particularly those this evening, in the hope that what each is seeking is achieved in the months ahead.]

Also, finally I say thank you to all of those who have lobbied me—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I seek the leave of the House for this vote to be deferred until the next members’ day and to be set down as an order of the day on that day in order for there to be a considered ruling on whether this is a conscience vote or not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is the motion that I sought before—when I sought leave for this because of the position that we have taken over a long, long time on this issue—for it to be a conscience vote.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : Speaking to that point—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you brought up a point of order, Mr Peters, and the member is responding. I have invited the member to respond to your point of order.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Although it is not very common, it is not unusual for members within a party to vote with their consciences and split their votes. It happened quite a number of times in the 49th Parliament with members of the ACT Party. I do suggest to the New Zealand First Party, as a way through this impasse, that if its members are prepared to vote with their consciences—and I presume their leader is well aware, having canvassed those views in advance of the debate—they are absolutely free to split their vote and cast it accordingly.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : The member is absolutely right—other than the application of Standing Order 141, where there is a requirement for the Speaker to make a ruling as to whether an issue is a conscience vote or not. I am trying to do some rapid research on contested votes on gambling issues—and there have been a lot of votes on gambling issues that have not been contested, because the House has been unanimous on them—but I am unaware of contested votes on gambling issues that have not been treated that way. That is for pretty obvious reasons, and that is that members do have points of view that go to their conscience rather than being ideological views, which were what divided ACT in what the member referred to before.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I just want to briefly point out that I may have misheard you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I am quite sure you have made a considered ruling under Standing Order 141.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have. The matter is at an end. However, in dealing with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, if his party wishes to have a split vote, I refer him to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a conscience vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I have actually ruled and you sought leave, and that leave was denied. So at this stage the way forward, if there is a way forward, is if the member wishes, under Standing Order 140(1)(b), “a party’s votes may be cast for the Ayes or for the Noes or recorded as an abstention, and a party may cast some of its votes in one of these categories and some in another or others (a split-party vote):”. So if the member wishes to have a split vote, or any member wishes to have a split vote, that can be accommodated.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the submission Mr Woodhouse made, which may have found favour with you, this is not a matter of whether we disagree on a policy. This is a different matter, to do with a conscience vote, and you usually find them on issues like this and on alcohol, which have been the two longstanding—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The sin thing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the last six sins—the particular ones that Parliament has tended to focus on. They are not to be likened to the dispute over ideology such as the ACT one that Mr Woodhouse raised. With respect, there is also, if you look at Standing Order 141, a personal vote being held following a party vote. But we do not want to get up and say that there are, say, six for and two against, with those people who happen to be against not having their names recorded, demonstrating their conscience. There is something that is being diminished here, if you find in favour of that sort of ruling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, the split vote provision in this Parliament now is that those who vote for and against in a split vote have their names recorded. So that is a very clear provision, which is—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s not the point, at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you said that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Treat it like a conscience vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. The provision now is quite clear. Under a split vote our members are recorded for and against, and the public knows which way they voted. So we now move to the vote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell me how you get past these words in Standing Order 141, with respect to your consideration? It reads, at one point: “and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” That is the only matter that you have to concern yourself with—that is right there in the Standing Orders—rather than ruling it out before we start. That is my point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we have not got to that point yet, because I have not put the vote.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard your ruling before as to process. What I did not hear is you rule that gambling is not a conscience issue. My view is that the precedent has always been in this House where there is division on a gambling issue, on a liquor issue, on a sex issue—and there is another one as well, but I cannot remember what it is. But it is the “sins”, anyway, or that group of issues. They are conscience issues. That is what Standing Order 138 refers to. I think I am pleading with you not to upset the precedent of this Parliament and the rights of members to have conscience votes.

You ruled as to the current Speaker’s practice, as far as dealing with these matters, and the development of the Business Committee, and all of us think it is a good thing that if members do take it to the Business Committee, there is a proper discussion and there is notice. What came out of this was when I said to our whip that I had seen a party vote on a matter of shop trading—that is another of those issues—and it came out of Sunday trading and Easter trading. That is the issue I was trying to think of before. It is not quite a sin, although some people would regard it as a sin to trade on Easter Sunday. The point I am making is that gambling has always been a conscience issue. I accept that the process that has been developed is a good process, but my plea to you is that you do not let a lack of a non-Standing Order process override the Standing Orders of the House.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am going to deal with this. The member asked whether I had ruled on whether this was a conscience vote. I have not ruled in that way. I have not actually mentioned that at all. What I have been guided by very much is Standing Order 139: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” So that is one of the considerations I have taken into account. Although it may have been a convention, as the member says, that gambling and other matters have in the past been treated as conscience votes, I have not determined in my deliberations that, in fact, this is to be treated as a conscience vote. So I am guided very much by Standing Order 139. Of course, I mentioned that if a party wishes to split its vote, it can do so under Standing Order 140(1)(b). The member sought leave for this to be postponed. It is very clear that we cannot postpone it, because leave was not granted. From here on in I am required now to put the vote.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 139 actually does not leave you an option. If a matter is a conscience vote, you must permit a personal vote to be held and not a party vote. There is not an option. It is not something for you, Mr Speaker, to choose to do. If it is a conscience vote, then the procedures for split votes, in Standing Order 140, do not apply, because they are for split votes; they are procedures for party votes and not for personal votes. I know that my colleague Charles Chauvel has been studying this question, as well as Mr Hipkins. I put it to you that you do not have an option on this. If it is a conscience issue, you cannot choose to have a party vote on it. My submission to you is this has always been a conscience issue where there is a division. I accept there have been lots of times when there has not been a division, and therefore it does not apply. But this is a conscience issue. You cannot get more of a conscience issue than gambling-type stuff, in my opinion. But I know that my colleagues have views as well.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I just want to make a very brief contribution to this discussion, because I have had the chance to have a read of some of the relevant sections of McGee while this interchange has been taking place, and I think it is important.

One of the distinctions made in McGee is that when parties are casting split votes, it is because a member wishes to take a different position to that of their party. In the issue of a conscience vote, it is because a party has not taken a position on an issue and, therefore, it is free for individual members to take a position. Therefore, in the historical context of gambling, along with a number of moral issues around drinking, sex, and so on, it has been a conscience issue because members have taken that view, not the parties having taken the view. So the split voting by parties is designed—according to McGee—for situations where members wish to take a different position to a party position, whereas this issue here, by the precedent of the House, has typically not been treated as a party issue but has been treated as an issue for individual members’ conscience. Therefore, the provisions around split voting, to me, do not seem to apply here, because this is not a situation where members are wanting to take a different position from an agreed party position, where there is a set of processes that parties have in place in order to allow that to happen, and to record that and to give consent for members to vote differently to their party.

This is a case where members are indicating that parties should not be taking a position that individual members should be taking a position on. It seems to me, from a quick read of McGee—and there are several thousand pages, so I have not read every part of it, but from the parts that I have been able to read, it would seem to me—that there is quite a clear distinction there.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear Michael Woodhouse.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I think the member has a point, albeit there do appear to me to be some inconsistencies with a rigid principle of voting with a conscience on those issues. We are considering soon the second reading and Committee stage of a sale of liquor amendment bill, which is the sort of legislation that, as members more experienced than I know, has often been a conscience vote, and there are long stories of that turning into a bit of a dog’s breakfast in 1989, and in 1998 or 1999. In fact, the former Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power made it very clear that there was one area where there would be a conscience vote, and that is on the purchase age, and there has not been a single word of challenge to that being the method by which that bill should be progressed. So although I accept the point the member is making, I do not believe it is an absolutely consistently rigidly followed rule.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Can I just contribute back to that point, because I think it is an important one. I think it is fair to say that the Hon Simon Power indicated the approach that the National Party, or possibly the Government, would be taking on the sale of liquor legislation. He was not indicating the method that the House would take on it, because, of course, as the Minister in charge of the bill, he could not take from the Speaker and take from the House the right to have votes on conscience issues.

I do agree with the member, but I am someone who moved an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989, I think, in order to keep the royal charters, including the Petone Working Men’s Club. The Minister voted against it, but I convinced the House that he was wrong and the Petone Working Men’s Club was right. I am not sure that the legislation was better for it, but certainly the will of the House was established in that way.

I can understand why Ministers who want things tidy do not like conscience votes, because sometimes you can even get things that are not entirely internally consistent within bills. But, having said all of that, there has been a group of areas that have been established for having them. Although the National caucus can make a decision, if it wanted to, to exercise a collective conscience, if you like, as opposed to individuals having to vote—and parties have done it in the past; my party has on occasions on conscience votes done that—they were still clearly conscience votes and not party votes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We are not—I am going to rule now.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One last point, and I want to assure the Assistant Speaker that if you want an extension of time to cast a vote after making the decision, then we will certainly vote for it, so we are not trying to ruin the time of the House tonight. But this is not a Government bill; it comes from a private member. That is pretty important. It is not a Minister bringing a bill here, but a private member.

The second thing is that there has been a long tradition over a long period of time, and I would be absolutely quite shocked to think that there is anybody actually—in any way like a majority—who thinks that the issue of gambling is not a conscience issue. It always has been, and across the party divide it always has been, for a long time, and this goes back decades. So what you are required to do, with respect, is not a great thing to do: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue,”. That is the issue for you. Then something else automatically follows—it will be a conscience issue.

I am putting it to you personally, and as a leader of a political party and somebody who has been here a long time, that if you are going to get up in this House and say, with respect—you are entitled to say it, but with respect—that this is not a conscience issue, then I would, frankly, think that this Parliament has lost something tonight.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I thank all members for their contributions. This has certainly exercised my mind. Advice from the Clerks is that the decision about whether a matter is a conscience issue is for the Speaker to determine in each instance. The practice that has been adopted in this instance has not been followed, and that is the issue that I mentioned earlier about—[Interruption] no, I know; this is an overview—actually seeking from the Business Committee agreement that we would be having a conscience vote on this bill.

This bill deals with gambling harm and its reduction, and I agree that traditionally these bills have been a conscience vote. So I am prepared to do this. Do the whips have the process where they can cast a personal vote? I am asking the whips of each party, if we were to go ahead with the personal vote, can they vote in respect of their own members?

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can certainly say on behalf of the Labour Opposition that we are not prepared at this point for a vote. There is actually a discrepancy. I was looking at this in relation to Easter trading this morning, and there is an issue around some inconsistency around the casting of proxy votes in the Standing Orders that actually needs to be dealt with separately. I will raise that at another, appropriate moment, because it does require a proxy vote to be in writing and signed by a member. Therefore an email or a text message or a phone call is not sufficient, so for us to do that, it would be very difficult. So I am going to seek leave again. I know it has been put before, but I think, given the discussion we have now had, I will seek leave again for the vote on this matter to be deferred until the next members’ day, so that it can be discussed at the next Business Committee meeting.

I just note that there are some strongly held views here that have been expressed by members, and I would be very uncomfortable now, as a whip, casting votes on behalf of the whole party, if it is declared by the Speaker to be a party vote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : One thing here: we are in a position to actually oblige, and I do recognise that you have made a personal attempt here, but I have to say that under Standing Order 142, which is “Procedure for personal vote”, there is no such mechanism. That is the problem with your suggestion, although we do appreciate that you have made it.

LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) : In terms of trying to assist this point of the discussion, I guess it is a first reading. Therefore any final decisions on this bill—I am assuming a change in the vote, whether it is a conscience or a party vote, could be done at a third reading, which is possibly, as the time when the bill is in its final stages, the more critical of the votes.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : Having listened to the debate, I have grown increasingly concerned about the position of a member of tender conscience on an issue like this. If the scenario is that the member feels a particular way on an issue that is traditionally subject to a conscience vote, yet the whips and the party leadership in his or her party feel another way, and if the Business Committee is therefore not alerted to the prospect of it being a conscience vote, so that the Speaker does not have the opportunity to consider the issue in that forum, then there is no remedy for that member to express their conscience in the House. Presumably, if they have not been able to get that done by their whips or their party leaders, they are not going to be able to get it done by way of a split vote, signalled later.

I ask you to make a ruling under Standing Order 139 as to whether this ought to be a conscience vote, and I hope you will rule that it is one. I know—well, I think from the debate it is clear—that members are willing to participate in a personal vote tonight, if that can be held.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I do appreciate the spirit in which the member Mr Chauvel has raised that point and also the issues that have been raised by Mr Mallard. I say this respectfully. The first reading of this bill started on 4 April, 5 weeks ago, and, as a matter of process, there has been plenty of opportunity for respective caucuses to consider their position and advise the Business Committee accordingly. It is simply not appropriate to be raising it—I say this respectfully—on the eighth call of the first reading, 5 weeks after we started.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Mr Speaker, speaking as the co-leader of the party that brought this bill to the House, I heard your call for the vote, and I heard Mr Mallard ask for the leave of the House and the leave of the House was declined. I feel that the vote now has to be put.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Sorry, very briefly, Mr Speaker. I apologise; I will do this very briefly. I heard your indication as to asking whether whips are ready for a personal vote. I have spoken to our whip. If you grant the conscience vote we are not in a position to do proxies, but there are members in the House and actually they are present, so they can vote. I have no doubt that the bill will pass its first reading on a personal vote, so we are not going to the result, but I think we are establishing the principle.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is my final ruling. I am going to put the vote, and if the member calls for a personal vote, I will allow it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I call for a personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A personal vote has been—I have to put the question first.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify what you have just ruled, and that it is your considered decision that if a personal vote was called for, you will agree to it. Is that what I heard you say?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is what I have said.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So I will come back to Standing Order 141, which are the grounds and the circumstances for bringing—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have already ruled.

Michael Woodhouse: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have already ruled and we intend to put the vote, and after I have put the vote, if a member then calls for a personal vote, a personal vote will be held. That is my ruling. End of matter. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it?

Hon Members: The Ayes have it.

Hon Members: The Noes have it.

Hon Members: Personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A personal vote has been called for. I will ask for a personal vote.