Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : I move, That the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Before I delve into this bill, I want to pass on to the people of Canterbury the sympathy that I think everyone here has for what happened to those people. When one has been the Minister of Civil Defence, one knows the problems going on, and I say to John Carter that many people appreciate the work he is doing.

This bill is on behalf of the Manukau City Council. It will allow the council to make by-laws designating any place a specified place; it requires a by-law to be made and reviewed in a manner similar to that of a by-law made under the Local Government Act 2002; it prohibits the conduct of the business of prostitution or the supply or receipt of any commercial sexual service in a specified place; and it provides the police with powers to arrest a person committing an offence under this legislation.

This whole question goes way back to the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which was passed by one solitary vote. Since then, Manukau City Council has been back to this House, trying to get legislation to help it overcome a difficulty it has. In my electorate of Manurewa and in Ross Robertson’s electorate of Manukau East we have been plagued by street prostitution for a number of years. Of course, it has a huge impact on the community. When shopkeepers have to clean up used condoms, vomit, and urine in their shopfronts, people get very upset. When kids on their way to school see that, they are annoyed. The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 did not solve the problem. In most areas, people work in brothels, but we have a certain class of people who, I think, make life bad for others. This bill is supported by the two chief mayoral contestants for the super-city. They are Len Brown and, of course, John Banks. Here they are, soliciting themselves on the front cover of Metro magazine. They are soliciting for votes, which is far different from anything else.

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is well known in this House that using visual aids is acceptable only by the member speaking, and no one else. Former Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson was joining in by holding up that display, which I think Mr Assistant Speaker saw.

H V Ross Robertson: I know that the member is a new member—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not helpful.

H V Ross Robertson: —but the reality is—and I am trying to inform the member—that during the course of a speech a member is entitled to use a display. That was what was happening, and it was only for a very short time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The point has been made. We know the rules.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I thank the member opposite for his real concern. Soliciting is something that I think he does around election time, but he will not do it very successfully next time; in fact, he might be further down National’s list.

When Manukau City Council developed its first bill it thought some real progress would be made, and, to be sure, the first reading attracted about 100 votes in this House. Then it went off to the select committee. It came back from the select committee, and the committee was divided on the matter, but in the end it decided not to proceed with the bill, so the council had the added problem of trying to find a way around the issue. It has used all the options we would expect a council to use. It has used better street lighting, closed-circuit television, Māori wardens and ambassadors, and of course the police have been directed to look at the problem. But prostitution is just one of many social problems that are impacting on South Auckland. I have another bill on the Order Paper, the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill, which is waiting for its second reading, and deals with another aspect of the social deprivation that is happening. There is also the issue of pokie machines, but the issue that really annoys most people is the street prostitution that goes on. Yes, we have a lot of people who are very upset that there is a mix of alcohol abuse and street prostitution going on at the same time.

Last time, I said it was a plea from Manukau City Council for help. This bill is also a plea for help from Manukau City Council. This bill may have the unusual feature of lasting longer than the council. Manukau City Council will not exist on 1 November, and, hopefully, this bill will be picked up by the new super-city. That remains to be seen. Some people such as Councillor Dick Quax have been pushing to have this matter dealt with for a long time, but there are some councillors who identify the problem and make a lot of noise about it, but nothing happens. I am referring to Colleen Brown, who has written an article in a newspaper about a young girl—let us call her “Holly”—who stands in the half-light of a liquor store. She goes on to describe “Holly” as a 14-year-old on the streets. I challenge every member of this House to get up and say whether a 14-year-old on the streets is acceptable. The trouble with the article, of course, is that it is made up by Colleen Brown, who does not do anything other than make up stories.

H V Ross Robertson: She wrings her hands.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, she wrings her hands, and this is a problem that needs far more support than that. It needs the support of this Parliament, so that Manukau can get something done.

When people talk about liquor being an associate of prostitution, people really know what is meant. We have people marching around South Auckland protesting about liquor, but the chair of the Wiri Licensing Trust goes on those marches. She is selling booze and protesting about the sale. So in South Auckland there is real conflict, and people are getting confused messages. I say that this issue needs a forceful answer. It needs people to stand up and be accountable. It does not need people who make up stories, or people who try to sell booze but say they are against it and against prostitution. We need people of much sterner stuff.

It is unfortunate that this bill has come into the House at this late stage, but it takes a lot of time and a lot of work by a council to bring a local bill before the House. I thank the officers of the Manukau City Council for their efforts. I thank the people of Manukau City who have contacted me about this bill.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am really sorry to interrupt my colleague, but the reality is that a member in this House is using the Chamber as an office. The member knows who I am talking about. He was using a telephone, which is against the Speakers’ rulings. I know that is true because I made the ruling myself. The member knows who it is.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that. Members know that they cannot make calls in here. They must go out to the lobbies to do that.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: What happens is that people look to this Parliament to see whether it will make a difference, and whether it will give power to a local authority to do something about a problem. Of course, that is what is really important: saying to councils that we will support them in their battle against street prostitution. We are not asking to turn the clock back to the days prior to 2003, when the prostitution reform legislation was before the House, but we are saying that it is time for change, and people have had enough.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. I congratulate the Hon George Hawkins on sponsoring the bill on behalf of the Manukau City Council. I believe the council requested he do so, and as a good local member and an aspirant member of the new local council he has done so. We wish him well in the forthcoming elections. The aim of this bill is to stop prostitution in specified places throughout Manukau City. I note that the 2008 review of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 concluded that most territorial authorities had no problems with the sex industry in their districts and had received few complaints about it.

However, that is not so in Manukau City and in Christchurch, and we have heard some fairly explicit descriptions of what goes on in Manukau City and around that area. There is no doubt that it is pretty awful. The council tried to have a bill introduced in 2005 to bring attention to the problem and to impose a complete ban on street prostitution in Manukau, but it was defeated. Following efforts by councillors to make suggestions, this bill is the result. I think the Hon George Hawkins agrees that it is far from perfect, but, indeed, I support this bill. I think the situation is very serious, and it is worthy of referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee for detailed discussion to see whether something useful can come from it.

A variety of difficulties with this bill have been pointed out. The first one is that once we ban street prostitution from one area like Hunters Corner, the prostitutes will go elsewhere and we could keep passing by-laws until the area is more or less covered. Another thing is that the police are concerned that prostitutes will become wary of the extra policing, lighting, and all the rest, and the police may have to bring in undercover agents. Through this bill, the police have the power to arrest on suspicion and to impose fines up to a value of $2,000. But, clearly, this could be a merry-go-round. I note that the Prostitutes Collective is against this bill because its view is it is very important that if prostitutes are to carry out their profession in the streets they should not have to move to less safe places that are dimly lit, where all sorts of problems can occur.

It is worthwhile pointing out the aims of the original Prostitution Reform Act of 2003. They were to decriminalise prostitution, although not endorsing or normally sanctioning prostitution or its use; to create a framework to safeguard the human rights of sex workers, and to protect them from exploitation; to promote the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers; to contribute to public health; and to prohibit the use in prostitution of persons under the age of 18. I think most of those aims were very, very important, and the review suggested that most of those aims were being fulfilled. There is no doubt that safe sex and diminishing the problems of infectious disease and sexually transmitted disease was one issue that was very important to improve in New Zealand at that time. In this issue of prostitution in Manukau City, there is what has been described as a variety of unsavoury debris—needles, used condoms, vomit, and urine—found close to schools and places of work, which has to be cleared up, day after day.

There are also under-age sex workers. I was very concerned when I heard the Hon Maurice Williamson point out that when he went around these areas with some of the councillors and expressed his concern about young women, who were clearly under age, being with the older prostitutes, one of them came up to him and said: “Look, you’ve got to realise that these young women are here, they are under our protection, they are being fed, and they are given money. If they were at home, they would be beaten up, they would be raped by their parents, and their life would be made even worse.” I think this describes the huge difficulty of this whole problem. Certainly, during the debate on the 2003 bill, under-age sex—prostitutes going from legalised situations to illegal ones—was one of the big difficulties predicted at that time. Here in Manukau City we have the problem of it happening overtly, night after night.

This bill will give only a limited amount of assistance to what is occurring very explicitly. It does not solve the wider problem of illegal prostitution, and particularly under-age prostitution. They need to be addressed in a systematic and very careful manner, as outlined in the review of the 2003 Act. Nevertheless, this bill has arisen because of a repeated problem in a specific part of New Zealand. I agree it is worthy of being supported to the select committee, and I congratulate once again the Hon George Hawkins on his sponsorship of this bill. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The remaining calls will be of 5 minutes’ duration. There will be a bell at 4 minutes.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : It is my pleasure to rise to support the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill in respect of street prostitution. I think it is important for members of this House to note that this bill is not about eliminating prostitution. There is no effort whatsoever being made to repeal the Prostitution Reform Act. This bill is about addressing a problem that the people of the Manukau City Council acknowledge has existed for some time in their midst. It is a problem that has caused quite a lot of pain within some sectors of that community. No doubt my colleague to my right, Ross Robertson, and my colleague to my left, George Hawkins, who represent those communities, will have more to say on this issue.

I think it is important to say that we are not about trying to eliminate prostitution, and I do not think that will ever be possible. For as long as there is violence in the home, women are beaten up, and women and children are sexually abused, there will be people who feel inclined that this is perhaps a way for them to earn a living and a way for them to pay back the people whom they might be angry with. As long as there are men out there with money who are willing to buy this kind of service, then we will always have that sad situation in our community.

I say also that this bill is not driven by any moral outrage, despite the fact that in the early days of the Prostitution Reform Act, the Manukau community felt as though it had every right to say no to what was being proposed then. It is important that members note that this bill focuses specifically on street prostitution.

I understand that the members of the Manukau City Council are united in sending a very strong signal to this House that it is a problem and that they simply want this bill to be referred to a select committee so that we can listen to the evidence that is available from the public, particularly the public of Manukau, and so that we can also get some advice in terms of how we deal with this particular problem. The problem is that the Prostitution Reform Act does not protect the women who are offering their services on the streets. Despite the work of the council in advocating for social services and protection from other agencies, and its work in ensuring that these areas are lit, have closed-circuit television, and are monitored by security, the fact remains that it is not only unsafe for those practising their services on the street but also unsafe for members of the local community when they have to deal with the nuisance factor that arises from street prostitution.

I will not say anything further, except to say that this bill is a major improvement on the previous bill that was forwarded by the Manukau City Council in 2005. It is the view of the council, which I support, that the Prostitution Reform Act has failed to protect street workers or to move them to safer settings indoors. As I said, this bill will not provide the sole answer. It is a tool, as we explore how to try to deal with the unsafe situation of young people, mainly, who feel that they have to offer their services on the street. We need to provide a balance so that their rights as prostitutes are protected and the rights of the community are maintained.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : It is my pleasure to stand and speak on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, which was introduced by the Hon George Hawkins. The bill aims to address behaviour associated with street prostitution in certain areas of Manukau City. Prostitution is one of the oldest professions in the world, and I respect those who are in that profession. They take on that profession because of their circumstances, not by choice. We say slavery has vanished from modern civilisation, but that is not true. Still it exists. It applies only to women, and it is known as prostitution.

My out-of-Parliament office is in Papatoetoe, at Hunters Corner, and several people have come to my office to complain about street prostitution. Street prostitution at Hunters Corner is a major issue for the residents and business owners in Papatoetoe. Businesses complain that they have found used condoms in their car parks and doorways, and that human waste has been left against the walls of their businesses. Schoolchildren from Papatoetoe Central School, Papatoetoe High School, and Papatoetoe Intermediate School walk past those areas on their way to and from school.

Papatoetoe is a community of good people and it is a pleasant place to live, yet it is dramatically dragged down by a very small minority. During the day Hunters Corner looks like a corner on any shopping strip: a steady stream of traffic passes a pick ‘n’ mix of offices, takeaways, and grocery shops. But as night falls Hunters Corner is hunted by the predators of sex.

The proposed law will make Papatoetoe and Manukau a safer area to live and work in. We need to protect our community and our youngsters. When the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 was enacted, I doubted that anyone would have thought that street prostitution at Hunters Corner would increase so drastically. Even though this bill does not address all the issues, I support the bill at its first reading.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. I take just a brief call on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill to state where the Māori Party sits. We are aligned as a party in respect of our stand on this issue.

We recognise that Māori might take up some roles here and there—just like any other New Zealander—in the wider sex industry. Some will be street-based workers; the research tells us that Māori are more likely to be represented here than in managed or private businesses. Māori may be managers or owners, and Māori may access commercial sexual services. But a wider group of whānau is also affected either by their family member’s involvement in the sex industry, or simply as members of communities in which the business of prostitution, or commercial services, plays out.

Prominent in our thinking around any legislation to do with the sex industry is the matter of health and public safety, not just of the workers but of the greater community as a whole. The literature tells us that people enter the industry primarily for economic reasons. Most sex workers are female, and female workers most often cited the need to pay for household expenses as well as to support their families. Ironically, it is the working conditions—the flexible working hours and the ability to earn money readily, at rates often exceeding the minimum hourly wage—that attract many of the participants.

Some research provided to the Prostitution Law Review Committee also provided some interesting ideas around how to encourage workers to exit the industry. Transgender sex workers spoke of the lack of acceptance in society and the feeling of belonging that they got from working with people who were more similar to them. Young sex workers also spoke of the feeling of acceptance and the family-like atmosphere they got from working on the streets. So some bigger issues around the existence of the sex industry need to be tackled before one simply imposes a ban that prohibits the business, as with this particular bill.

All of that background being in place, when the Ministry of Justice reported back on 1 May 2009 about the impact of the prostitution law reform it concluded: “localised approaches are likely to be more effective than legislation” for dealing with the issue. It recommended that the council, the police, residents, business owners, and sex workers work together to address the community tensions and antisocial behaviour set out by other colleagues in the House this afternoon.

It is very hard to understand why Mr Hawkins would ignore that advice and put a bill forward anyway. Even more worrying is the extent of the new authorities that Mr Hawkins is seeking to invest in the police to deal with prostitution by granting officers powers of arrest that would enable them to stop and search vehicles and demand that passengers state their private details, merely on suspicion of committing an offence under this Act. We do not find favour with that. If the passengers—frightened, embarrassed, or fearful of being outed—happen to object, they will be stung anyway with a $1,000 fine.

So many other things could have been done to improve the health and safety of people in Manukau City. For example, appropriately targeted and well-designed programmes can offer support, education, and advocacy to young Māori and others involved in prostitution. The programmes provided by Te Aronga Hōu Ināianei, for example, provide services to those soliciting on the streets of Counties-Manukau. The outreach service, the toro atu, is a mobile service offering information and support. The āwhinatia service links takatāpui and youth with appropriate support services. The knowledge and training service, mātauranga, provides well-being education, awareness programmes, personal development, and vocational rehabilitation.

We do not support this bill going forward. We believe that it sets an undesirable precedent in creating a local exception to the Prostitution Reform Act. Finally, we believe that those involved in the sex industry are regulated far more effectively by family and peers than by legislation and the police.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : Our caucus sometimes has debates over bills that we do not support, or that we support only in part, as to whether there is some value in allowing them to go to select committee in the hope that a better bill may emerge. Today I stand to say that the Green Party does not support the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. However, some of our members believe that there would be value in discussing the issues further in a select committee, and they will vote for the bill’s first reading on that basis. Those members believe that local communities should make local decisions, if this is possible without undermining the law.

The majority of us, however, will oppose the bill at its first reading. Our reasons for opposing the bill are exactly the same as the reasons that the Green Party vigorously opposed the equivalent bill the last time that George Hawkins introduced it in 2005, and are the same reasons that the Green Party strongly supported Tim Barnett’s original Prostitution Reform Act. The bill enables the council to re-criminalise soliciting in particular areas of its choosing. This effectively recreates exactly the imposition on the rights of sex workers that existed under the old law, except that the penalties will be 10 times higher. It is constitutionally objectionable furthermore for local authorities effectively to create criminal law.

The point of the Prostitution Reform Act was to focus the law on those behaviours that can be associated with soliciting that present actual problems, such as people being harassed or intimidated, offensive signage or behaviour, or used condoms left in public places. There are solutions and remedies for all of those behaviours. Rather than the moral objections that some people have about prostitution, this principle is being reversed by the bill that stands before us today.

I am not belittling the concerns or the anxiety of the Manukau City Council, local residents, or shopkeepers; rather, I am restating the point of view that I expressed back in 2003 as the executive director of the New Zealand Aids Foundation, alongside my colleagues from the New Zealand Family Planning Association, the National Council of Women, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the Public Health Association, the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the YWCA, and many other organisations. Those concerns were that marginalised, desperate, and vulnerable members of our society who end up street-based soliciting in places such as Hunters Corner are easier to reach out to with services and with information if they are not doubly victimised and hiding from criminal sanctions such as those again proposed in this bill.

Street-based soliciting at Hunters Corner is hardly a new phenomenon. It was extensively discussed in the debate and in the submissions made on Tim’s original bill. The arguments being made tonight in favour of this bill were considered and rejected at that time and then considered and rejected again in 2005 by the Local Government and Environment Committee and by Parliament. Then in 2008 the Prostitution Law Review Committee visited the areas that the council was concerned about, discussed the issues broadly, and heard from the police that they were more concerned about family violence and abuse of alcohol in these areas. The review committee again rejected the arguments advanced by the council, endorsing the recommendation made by the select committee.

In 2009 the crime prevention unit of the Ministry of Justice undertook another comprehensive review of the specific issues addressed by the bill, published under the title Review of street-based prostitution in Manukau City. Again the review concluded—as have all reviews—that localised measures for working with sex workers and non-governmental organisations were a more productive way to address any actual problems being experienced and that legislative approaches were unlikely to be effective and were quite likely to create fresh problems.

In summary, this bill intends to unwind the intent of the original Act. It is constitutionally repugnant, has been considered frequently and in great depth, and is both extremely unlikely to achieve its intent and likely to further marginalise some of the most vulnerable members in our entire society. It is a waste of this House’s time. I do not support it going any further.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) : Tēnā koe. Street prostitution can be dangerous. Often in this House we pass legislation with good intentions, sometimes not knowing its effects on, or ramifications for, the people whom we seek to serve. Since the legalisation of prostitution, the residents of Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe have never been the same. That also goes for the residents of Ōtāhuhu, which also has a street problem. I can tell this House that some traumatic incidents have occurred over the years since the legalisation of prostitution—and out of the public eye. As the local member for both areas, I am continually reminded by concerned citizens about the state of Hunters Corner when daylight resumes each day, with faeces, condoms, vomit, and drug paraphernalia left in shop doorways, and residents woken by actions that concern all and sundry. This evening I stand with and for the people of my electorate, and I will vote to support the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill going to a select committee at its first reading.

The bill is not opposed to prostitution—only to where it is carried out. Street prostitution can be dangerous. It can be a dangerous environment in which to work. Such workers are less accessible to health workers, who provide a community education programme with a focus on sexual and reproductive health and on HIV/AIDS. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective also provides community drop-in centres and outreach services throughout New Zealand where prostitutes can access a range of occupational health and safety support services, including sexual health advice, the use of health clinics, and needle exchange programmes. Peer education and support are also provided on a range of issues concerning the health, safety, and welfare of sex workers. Street prostitution can be dangerous.

I emphasise again, as both of my colleagues have done this evening, that this bill is not about eliminating prostitution or revising the Prostitution Reform Act, which was passed in 2003. No, it is about where prostitution is carried out. As the explanatory note of the bill states, “The purpose of the bill is to authorise the Manukau City Council to make bylaws prohibiting the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services in specified public places in Manukau City. The business of prostitution in private premises carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 will not be affected.” That is where my two colleagues and I from the city of Manukau come from. We recognise that there is a problem. I have campaigned continuously for Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe to be cleaned up. In fact, in 2008 I raised the issue with the Mayor of Manukau, Len Brown, and also with the Counties-Manukau Police District commander, Superintendent Mike Bush. They advised that neither of them had the power to do anything about it, because no crimes were being committed.

This proposed legislation allows local businesses and residents to object to prostitution taking place on our streets, where it causes nuisance or serious offence to members of the public. It will have no impact whatsoever on brothels or smaller owner-operated brothels. The bill allows for an assessment of the impact of street prostitution in specific public places in Manukau City. I stand here tonight, along with my colleagues, to support Manukau City Council’s legislation in order that we can do something to protect our street workers. Tihei mauri ora! Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : I rise to speak in support of this local bill, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, which has been submitted by my colleague the Hon George Hawkins on behalf of the Manukau City Council. I am proud to be the National MP based in Manurewa, which is a vibrant and diverse community, full of hard-working families ambitious for themselves and for their children.

Street prostitution, as my colleague Mr Ross Robertson observed, is a dangerous occupation for its practitioners. It impacts negatively on our community, and it has proved to be an intractable problem in our community for a number of years. This bill will authorise the Manukau City Council to make bylaws that will designate specific public places within the boundaries of Manukau City where no person is permitted to conduct the business of prostitution or to supply or receive any commercial sexual services.

The Government, the Manukau City Council, and local business associations have effected huge improvements in our local Manurewa town centre over the last couple of years. The activities of prostitutes plying their trade in public spaces, such as Manurewa town centre and also the Hunters Corner area of Papatoetoe, significantly detract from the civic amenity and impact negatively on community pride. Householders and businesses often have to deal with the unsavoury aftermath. Syringes that litter the ground and other debris are not the welcome mat to Manurewa that this community wants.

I stand for a safer community. I stand for a Manurewa where our young people are encouraged to unlock the treasure trove of potential that lies within them all, a Manurewa where our young people are drenched with exhilaration at the opportunities available to them. I commend this bill to the House, and I support its referral to a select committee.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : First of all I thank the pretender to the throne of Manurewa, Cam Calder, for getting up—that person from the North Shore is concerned about street prostitution, as well. I thank all the people in the House who have spoken today from whatever point of view, because I believe that addressing that issue is very important. I thank even those people who spoke against the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. When we have legislation that deals with local problems, then I think a bit of passion comes out.

I have had people, over the course of time, tell me that instead of picking on the prostitutes, we should pick on the men who use them, and arrest those men. That is not a bad idea.

Hon Tau Henare: You had 9 years.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, I have had 9 years, but that member has been here for a long while, and what has he done? What has he done? Nothing—not a thing. However, I say the real tragedy about all of this is that under-age young girls are involved in prostitution. Of course, they cannot work in brothels until they are 18, so they are exposed to street prostitution. When the original reform bill came through Parliament, no one thought of that. Now we are trying to use band-aids to cover up problems that we did not foresee. I think that is a pity. We have had people murdered on the streets. Prostitutes have been murdered, which shows what a dangerous life it is to be on the streets.

When we analyse what is happening, we hear a council, Manukau City Council, asking for help. The community that Manukau City Council represents is asking for help. Perhaps the real answer is to go back and redo the Prostitution Reform Act, but I do not see many people who want to do that. Perhaps that is what the answer really is—to go back to the legislation. But people will not like to do that, because last time the legislation passed by one vote, and it was a real test for people. To try, in an election year, to amend or change the Prostitution Reform Act is the real measure.

People who have electorates and party offices know what the problems are. People come to see us. People from the churches come to see us. People from the schools come to see us, because they do not like kids to walk on their way to school through vomit left by undesirables who mix alcohol and prostitution. It is unseemly and, of course, it just does not make a town come right. I know that that is what my colleague Ross Robertson really wants to see happen in Hunters Corner, where there is a big problem. Ross Robertson is a person who keeps on going and going—a wee bit like the battery. He never runs out; he keeps on going. That is really important, because if one does not keep on going—[Interruption]

Ideally, we should go back to the Prostitution Reform Act and change it.

Simon Bridges: That was your party.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, and we made a mistake. I imagine that the present Government will not change that Act, but I thank its members for their support tonight. This bill provides a mechanism whereby, once again, a problem can be highlighted and a select committee can look at it. When the bill goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the committee can do some real, good work. The police have not been actively involved with this bill. They said they did not have the staff, but now that they have the staff they are still not interested. Addressing the issue is too hard for them, and it appears to be too hard for some of the political parties represented in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the question is that that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I request that a personal vote be taken.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking a personal vote. A personal vote will be held.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I move, That the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Health Committee. Timing is everything. Just over a year ago I stood to introduce my very first member’s bill—Te Rā o Matariki Bill/Matariki Day Bill. That bill was an opportunity to welcome a new dawn, to celebrate our distinctly New Zealand culture, and, within that, to acknowledge the importance of planning and preparing for our future, the future that cared for all peoples of this land Aotearoa. Then just 4 days ago a violent earthquake shook my electorate to its very feet, striking fear in the hearts of the people of Ōtautahi and leaving far too many families nervous about their financial outlook in the wake of damage done to business and home. Today, this bill is a genuine attempt to make a difference for low-income families, to make a difference for the health and well-being of New Zealanders, and in doing so to create a new environment of care for the future of our nation.

I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Dr Gay Keating, the national executive officer of the Public Health Association; the Māori Women’s Welfare League; the Country Women’s Institutes; the Alliance; the Socialist Unity Party; and the Residents Action Movement. It was the Residents Action Movement that gathered up the support and signatures of some 25,000 people and then embarked on a high-profile procession to Parliament in October 2008, rallying support along the way, to take GST off food on the grounds that GST hits low-income people disproportionately. I acknowledge the influence of all of these people and organisations in putting together this bill.

I want to lead off with the words of encouragement from Dr Gay Keating: “These benefits include helping New Zealanders improve their diet, particularly families on lower incomes which are likely to be harder hit by any increase in GST. Supporting Ms Katene’s bill would be a great move towards increased fairness. It would also be a great start towards lowering the high rate of avoidable disease, hospital admissions, and premature deaths that plague lower income families.”

I find it hard to believe that any politician could fail to be moved by such advice. It is in that spirit that I seek the opportunity across the House to at least enable this bill to benefit from the scrutiny of the select committee process. The Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill has emerged out of a growing body of Government and independent research that confirms the persistence of a high level of poverty and associated health and well-being effects in New Zealand, particularly in our children. International research, including the recent OECD report Doing Better for Children, has also confirmed the high rates of child poverty, poor living conditions, and poor health status for children in low-income families in New Zealand.

Professor Tony Blakely from Otago University’s public health department has made a substantial contribution to this debate through his study surveying the health and nutritional habits of some 1,100 shoppers. The study concluded that a 12.5 percent drop in price increased people’s consumption of healthy food by a massive 11 percent. The cold hard facts of life are that food prices have risen more than 20 percent in the last 3 years, while real incomes have risen only very slightly, and, within this, the increases for the staples of a nutritious diet such as fruit, vegetables, and milk have been particularly high.

As New Zealanders have heard about my bill and written to me with their support, I have heard some shocking stories about the mark-up on food prices by retailers. Some retailers have been charging 500 percent more GST to customers than they are paying in GST to the growers. If that is not outright robbery, I would like to know what is. I emphasise that although all consumers will benefit from the removal of goods and services tax from healthy food, those on lower incomes spend a greater proportion of their income on food and will receive a significant benefit as a result. My bill seeks to address rising food prices and the impact those have on the ability of those in low-income households to purchase healthy food, by exempting this food from goods and services tax.

I have been amused at some of the cynics who have complained that it would be difficult to define what is healthy and what is not. It reminds me of the words of a song: “You say tomahto, I say tomayto.” It is all technical detail that could easily be dealt with by administrators, and fine-tuning the policy for enactment. In my bill I have been very specific about how “healthy food” will be interpreted. It is fruit and veges, including fresh, frozen, canned and dried; breads and cereal, including all bread, grains, rice, and pasta; milk and milk products, including cheese, yoghurt, and plain milk—

Charles Chauvel: Roquefort!

RAHUI KATENE: —but excluding ice cream—sorry, Charles—cream products, condensed milk, and flavoured milk; lean meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds, and legumes.

Another issue that some critics have sought to expose has been about costings. Analysis of the Statistics New Zealand household economic survey 2008 estimates that the annual GST on all fruit and vegetables sold in New Zealand households was $167 million. In fact, an analysis collated for a Sunday paper in January 2009 showed that in reality the Government earned just under $51 million in GST revenue on fruit and veges in the year to June, so it is not likely that this bill would break the bank. Instead, it could well create impressive savings in health and well-being.

There have been some wild allegations that the GST on food is $1,267 billion, but that figure represents all food and non-alcoholic beverages, whereas my bill restricts the meaning of “healthy food” to the definition of healthy food based on the Ministry of Health’s food and nutrition guidelines.

Finally, I want to focus on the long-term savings that taking tax off healthy food could establish for this nation. Organisations such as the Public Health Association of New Zealand and the National Heart Foundation have called for the goods and services tax to be removed from foods that constitute a healthy diet, to make them more affordable. Alongside their support I was interested in the views put forward by Fight the Obesity Epidemic spokeswoman Dr Robyn Toomath. Her view was that removing tax on healthy foods and putting high taxes on unhealthy food was ideologically sound. It does not need to be as difficult as some people make out. What we already know is that many countries, including Australia and Britain, have already removed the GST equivalent on certain healthy foods. In fact, with all the talk about how great it would be to have a single Australasian market, it would be perfectly appropriate to work with the Australian Taxation Office, which has produced a computerised model that makes GST food and beverage compliance extremely easy to manage.

I want to acknowledge the enthusiastic support of the Labour Party and, in particular, of Mr Phil Goff, who has embraced the opportunity to at least explore the proposal to take the tax off food in an effort to encourage people to eat more healthy food. A GST food exemption is an easy and effective way to foster support for eating nourishing food, for protecting families from exorbitant costs, and for paving the way for a healthy future for all peoples of Aotearoa. I urge the House to support the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : I would like to share with the House the fact that National will not be supporting the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill—

Hon Members: Oh!

CRAIG FOSS: —members on the other side groan—but I fully acknowledge the sentiment, the aspirations, if you will, and the motivation behind this bill from the member Rahui Katene. I fully acknowledge that, and I will speak a little bit more on that in a moment.

I point out that New Zealand’s GST system is world-renowned. It is the envy of many of the countries that we compare ourselves with, or the countries that many people visit. The system has been relatively unchanged in the many years—perhaps 25-odd years—it has been in existence. I note that when the Labour Government, in the 1980s, brought in GST from zero to 10 percent, there were no exemptions to speak of. Exemptions were considered, I understand, but the then Labour Government chose not to make them. When Labour increased GST from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, again it did not exempt items such as healthy food, which this bill specifies. I note that the most recent Labour Government, from 1999 to 2008, considered exemptions along the way, but the point is that it chose not to exempt healthy food—or any other items, for that matter—from GST. I fully expect members on the other side will speak in support of the bill, as the previous member just noted. That is their right, of course, but when they do speak, their credibility is totally undermined because suddenly they will have become supportive of such an exemption. Of course, that is the nature of politics, but it is somewhat shallow. But I guess we will hear the speeches from members on the other side.

There is no doubt that the intent of the bill is to encourage a healthier diet and healthier living, which is absolutely fine. It also has to be noted that many families already buy healthy food and vegetables, but when the cost of GST is taken off, then someone, somewhere, has to bear the extra taxation cost—

Hon Phil Goff: Maybe the wealthy.

CRAIG FOSS: —maybe—whatever the amount may be. We can see how it can become complicated. I could make the same arguments for how healthy red wine is. Red wine is very good for one’s heart, apparently. I could make a case for exempting red wine from GST, on the basis that it is good for health care, heart care, etc. But I will not.

I will make a couple of further points. Some communities, particularly lower socio-economic communities, are able to access fresh fruit and fresh vegetables right now. I raise the example of Te Aranga Marae in Flaxmere, where there is a community garden. Most of the seeds and most of the plants are donated by the community, so there is zero GST for the people who participate in the garden; there is a great community spirit. The garden is managed by my good friend Hēnare O’Keefe. But my point is that the ability to grow and to access fresh fruit and vegetables is right there in our communities right now, regardless of the debates on raising GST, or not.

Hon Annette King: That’s because you live in Hawke’s Bay. Try Newtown in Wellington.

CRAIG FOSS: The member opposite tries to identify that it relates just to Hawke’s Bay. Well then, maybe we should have exemptions in other places down south, perhaps, rather than in Hawke’s Bay. We can start to see how complicated this could get. For example, an apple on a tree would not attract GST, but an apple that has been washed and bagged would. Again, I fully acknowledge the sentiment of the mover of the bill, and I value her contribution, but I really question what I am sure we are about to hear from members on the other side when they speak beyond this particular bill, and perhaps somewhat dilute the good intent behind it.

I also note, as the previous speaker noted, that in other jurisdictions GST or VAT is not charged on certain items. That is quite correct. But, again, after much debate most of those jurisdictions look quite enviously at New Zealand’s GST system, as it was introduced. It has essentially stood the test of time over 25 or 30 years, across Governments, and across Parliaments, and it still remains virtually unchanged. Of course, there will be some politicking from some members about the measure, but to be true to the integrity of GST, and to be true to the integrity of debate, a consistency of position is probably quite admirable. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) : The member who has just finished speaking, Craig Foss, did not have enough information to debate during the 10 minutes he had.

Labour will be supporting the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill to go to the Health Committee. We think we should hear the arguments in relation to whether exemptions should be made. This is a chance to hear from the experts. It is a chance to line up the officials and ask what the difficulties would be in exempting some categories of basic necessities from GST. Most important, it is a chance to let the public have their say on this legislation.

I want to know why National is frightened to send this bill to a select committee, where the debate can be had. National should have the courage of its convictions. If it thinks that exemptions are so bad, and that its arguments will stand up to that scrutiny, then it should subject them to that scrutiny. I say to Mr Foss that he should not run away from the debate, which is exactly what National is doing.

Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member speaking questioned the courage of members in the House, and I believe that is beyond the Standing Orders. I ask him—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Oh—

Craig Foss: I have not finished.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance. I am listening carefully. When allegations are made against a party or against its style, it is outside the margin of implying that individual members do not have courage. To say a member is running away from the debate—I do not think he has crossed that line. I am listening carefully, and if he crosses it, I will pull him up.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Labour does not support the breadth of the exemptions that are proposed by the Māori Party, and if the bill goes to the select committee we will be moving to limit those exemptions to a particular area—that is, fresh fruit and vegetables.

GST was brought in at a low rate, and it was brought in to be comprehensive. That low rate was 10 percent. The rate that National is now introducing on 1 October of 15 percent—contrary to the sincere promise that it made at the elections; John Key broke his word—is 50 percent higher than the rate at which it was introduced, and 50 percent higher than the rate at which our Aussie cousins pay GST across the Tasman. And Australia exempts food products. As a result of what this National Government is doing, the GST rate as a proportion of GDP in New Zealand will become the fourth highest in the 30 countries of the OECD—the fourth highest. So the National Party cannot claim that GST is at a low rate.

The thing about consumption tax is that it disproportionately hurts lower-income earners. It is a regressive tax. At the same time as the Government is hurting lower-income families, it is giving tax cuts to the highest earners. One-third of the tax cuts—33 percent—is going to National’s wealthy mates, the top 5 percent of income earners. Exempting fresh fruit and vegetables would be a way of giving some relief to those lower-income families. It is much fairer.

More than that, we know from the study done by the University of Auckland School of Medicine that when we take the tax off items like fresh fruit and vegetables, people consume more of them. The medical experts are saying to us that if we want to improve nutrition, then we should take the tax off fresh fruit and vegetables. The World Health Organization reports that we have the third-highest rate of obesity in the world—the third-highest rate of obesity in the world—but what is this Government doing about it? It is doing nothing. It could do something in a very positive sense. If we took this tax off to improve nutrition, the cost of it would be small. It would cost $200 million to $250 million, which is the same amount that National took in increased excise duties from those who smoke. If it is good enough to tax people more to stop them consuming, then the Government should take the tax off something we would like them to consume more of.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : Labour members are very keen to speak on the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill. I will continue on from the previous speaker, Phil Goff, who put forward a very strong case as to why we support this bill’s referral to a select committee. I ask why National will not support it to a select committee. I ask why National will not allow the people of New Zealand to make submissions on this bill. It is probably the first opportunity in 25 years for people to say whether they believe that changes ought to be made. Is that not democracy? Is that not open government, which we heard so much about today from the Prime Minister?

Unfortunately, as soon as the suggestion was made that GST ought to be removed from healthy foods—in particular, Labour suggested that GST be removed from fresh fruit and vegetables—John Key said that National would not support it. He did not wait to see whether the public wanted to have a say. He came straight out and said that National would not support it, and that the Government has compensated for the GST increase through personal tax cuts. Well, in the House today, I pointed out to Mr Key two increases, not even mentioning the price of food, that have come in before 1 October. Firstly, there has been an increase in power prices right around New Zealand. Yesterday, a letter arrived notifying me of a 6 percent increase in power from Contact Energy. Secondly, I pointed out the increase in the cost of bus fares in Wellington for people to get to work, which is $5 extra a week. So, $11 of the so-called tax cuts to compensate the increase in GST has been cancelled out and we have not even got to the extra GST on food. Labour asks why the Government will not support sending this legislation to the select committee.

The problem we have with this bill is that the definition of “healthy food” is complicated. Rahui Katene mentioned eggs, and we would have to ask whether the definition of “eggs” includes Scotch eggs. Scotch eggs are eggs with sausage meat around them that are put into fat and deep-fried, and they come out as a very fatty food. So we get into definition issues when we have such a broad definition. Labour would define “healthy foods” as fresh fruit and vegetables. There is nothing complicated about that, and we would move an amendment to propose that definition.

We support the bill’s referral to a select committee, because there is a real issue in New Zealand of obesity and the cost of affordable food. A very recent study in New Zealand showed that low-income New Zealand families would have to spend up to one-third of their income on food in order to eat healthily. A separate study revealed that 40 percent of New Zealanders go hungry, skip meals, or scrimp on ingredients because they are not food secure. The studies also said that people in low socio-economic groups are more likely to have diet-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers.

I hope Dr Hutchison will take a call, because as a doctor he should understand that there is a need to do something in New Zealand to address the obesity epidemic and to show some leadership. But all we have had since National came into Government is the rolling back of measures that try to address the obesity problem in New Zealand. Initiatives relating to healthy eating and healthy action have been laughed at and scoffed at by National, and such public health measures are being taken out of circulation.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : We all know the simplicity of the New Zealand GST tax system; it is renowned around the world. But in respect of the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill there is one point I think we need to make: do members really think that the price of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthy food will come down if we take off GST? No way. The market knows that it can get the same price for them. It will still charge that price, and there will not be a 15 percent or 12.5 percent reduction. So the theory behind the Labour argument is completely wrong. There is no guarantee there will be that reduction. There is no guarantee because the market can get those prices now and it will continue to do so even if we took off GST.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : The Green Party will support the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill’s referral to a select committee. We think that it is an important bill and we want to hear the arguments on it. We want to have the debate in select committee on this bill. We think the intent of the bill to encourage people, especially poorer families, to eat healthier food is an extremely important intent. Moreover, we think that the aim to reduce the price of food, particularly healthy food, is certainly noble and would make it easier for poorer families to afford healthy food. We also know that if we can get people eating better, healthier food there are cascading benefits to the health of the individuals and to the cost of the health system itself. New Zealand has an obesity epidemic. It is one of the greatest problems facing the New Zealand health system and New Zealand health in general. The obesity epidemic is a slow-moving health catastrophe and the cost and treatment of diabetes will swamp the health system if we do not do something about it.

One of the key drivers of the high cost of fruit and vegetables is the supermarket duopoly in New Zealand. One of the ways to address the high cost is to tackle the exorbitant mark-ups that supermarkets put on fruit and vegetables. Earlier this year my colleague Sue Kedgley surveyed fruit and vegetable growers in New Zealand and the growers reported that supermarkets, or rather the two supermarket chains that dominate 95 percent of the retail trade in New Zealand, routinely put mark-ups of 100 percent to 200 percent—and sometimes as high as 500 percent—on fruit and vegetables. So a grower will sell a kilo of lemons for 70c and the supermarket will charge $3.99 for them, which is a mark-up of more than 500 percent. These mark-ups are excessive and, frankly, obscene. They are putting fruit and vegetables out of the reach of ordinary New Zealanders whereas it is fresh fruit and vegetables that we absolutely need ordinary New Zealanders to consume more of. That is one of the key issues this bill is trying to address. The bill is trying to get people to purchase more fresh fruit and vegetables and obviously GST is one issue, but there are some other issues as well. These mark-ups that supermarkets are putting on fruit and vegetables are influencing the eating habits of New Zealand and discouraging us from buying them by making them too expensive. So dealing with supermarkets is one effective way to counter that, and I encourage members to support the development of a supermarket code of practice similar to the one in the United Kingdom. My colleague Sue Kedgley has a private member’s bill to do that. We are supporting this bill because it is one way to address the high price of fruit and vegetables.

Beyond the issue of the supermarket duopoly, which drives up prices, there is the further question of whether a cut in GST would be passed on to consumers. There are absolutely no guarantees that a cut in GST on fruit and vegetables would be passed on to consumers. It is, of course, a function of the duopoly that supermarket chains have an enormous leeway for setting their prices for fruit and vegetables. So in the select committee process, which I am disappointed National does not want to engage in, we can have the discussion about what is the best way to ensure that any cuts in GST would be passed on to consumers. National members have quite reasonably raised the issue of their concern as to whether cutting GST would result in that saving being passed on, but they do not want to take evidence and have the debate about it in select committee.

Supermarkets also have a complex set of internal price trade-offs, so they discount one line in order to get consumers in. The question is how much of the cut would be passed on. The other concern about this bill is the compliance costs, particular for small business. We know that supermarkets will have a system to make it easy for them to sort out what is GST-free and what is not. But for smaller businesses this can be quite a significant issue. So we would hope that in select committee we would look at that. The other issue is the reduction in Government revenue. A cut in GST involves a cut in Government revenue, so the question that would need to be debated is whether this is the most effective use of that forgone Government revenue. That is the debate we would all very much like to have in select committee around this excellent bill. We can have that debate in the select committee only if the majority of the House passes this bill tonight.

We certainly support this bill. There are very strong arguments for encouraging New Zealanders, particularly poorer New Zealanders, to eat fruit, vegetables, and other healthy food. We will certainly be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee tonight.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) : I rise to speak in the first reading of the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will not be supporting the bill for a number of reasons. However, I commend the sponsor of the bill, Rahui Katene, for her intent and her motivation in trying to raise awareness of healthy eating in New Zealand.

Unfortunately, one word has been missing from this debate, despite the fact that it has been raging backwards and forward across the House, and that is “education”. If there is one thing—

Hon Annette King: Read the research; it doesn’t work.

Hon HEATHER ROY: Mrs King says it does not work. During her 9 years in Government, she spent all her time saying that education is the best thing since sliced bread.

This has been a very interesting and enlightening debate because Labour seems to have forgotten that it was in power for 9 years and had the ability to put this measure in place during those 9 long years that we were subject to its policies and Draconian outlook on life. Labour had the numbers. It would have had support from the Green Party and maybe the Māori Party. Labour could have done it, but not for a minute did Labour think it was a good idea. It is interesting that all of the hard-hitters of Labour—the leader of the Labour Party, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, and other Labour caucus members here tonight who are not in Christchurch—are saying that this measure would be a good thing for the country, yet in Labour’s 9 long years in power, it did not take 2 minutes to even consider that this measure might be a good idea.

There are several things wrong with this bill, but I think that the sponsor of the bill should be congratulated on her motivation.

Labour said that it does not support the breadth of the definition of healthy food in the bill; Labour wants “healthy food” to be just fruit and vegetables.

Hon Annette King: ACT doesn’t support any of it.

Hon HEATHER ROY: That is right; we do not support it, because that is our principled position when it comes to these things.

I ask whether this bill is about health and healthy eating or about taxation. That is the basic question. The assumption being made by those members who support the bill is that people’s behaviour will be altered by dropping GST. The Green Party stood up and told us that supermarkets are terrible because the prices are exorbitant—as if they are the only places we can buy fruit and vegetables. I ask whether anybody has given any thought to the fact that people can actually grow their own fruit and vegetables. Not very many people do grow their own, but those who are serious about saving money go to nurseries or the supermarket and buy the seeds—[Interruption]; thank you very much, Mr Foss—which they have to pay GST on, and I think that is a good thing. There is no proof that people’s behaviour will be altered in any way by reducing GST on healthy foods.

I think there is also difficulty with the definition of healthy food. To be fair to Mrs King, it was mentioned by her. Healthy food is a confusing area and it is much more complex than it may seem. For example, fish and chips could be considered healthy because it contains fish and vegetables, so it would make sense that GST was removed. But I do not think it should be removed. A Scotch egg was the example that Mrs King used, and I agree with her. Part of the reason that Scotch eggs taste so good is that they have quite a high fat content. Eggs are relatively healthy and are accounted for in the bill.

When we look at the Australian example, we see that the issue is very confusing. We need to think carefully about taxation in respect of this bill, because removing GST from certain products in the marketplace means that we would lose part of the success of the universality of GST.

If GST was removed from healthy food of whatever description, a precedent would be set, and that precedent may affect other goods that people should be encouraged to utilise more. Toothbrushes in Northland might be a good example, but I ask whether removing GST from such an item would affect people’s behaviour. Setting a precedent by removing GST from healthy food would raise further questions of whether other goods that are of benefit to society should be exempt. For those reasons and others that I have not had a chance to address, the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tātou katoa. Unfortunately my colleague Rahui Katene had to get back to her home and her whānau tonight, so I add to the comments that she made to the House in opening the debate on the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill.

I say from the very start that there is no politics in this particular bill. This bill was on the agenda at the last election in terms of our platform as a Māori Party. It was ahead of any discussion in respect of what the National Party might do with GST. At the heart of it, it is motivated by the factors that my colleague Rahui set out at the very start. The first is a real desire to help those who are struggling in respect of paying the bills and looking after their whānau and families. On the back of that, by taking off GST from healthy foods in particular—and that it is healthy foods is deliberate—we might not only enable tamariki and whānau to have good food but also, in the end, contribute to the longer discussion on the health of New Zealanders across the board. Sure, in our view the bill is aimed towards Māori, but that is in the belief that what is good for Māori is good for everyone. I congratulate Rahui on taking on this bill for us as a party.

I cannot help but refer to the bailing out of South Canterbury Finance, which we debated in the House today. The amount paid out to the investors of South Canterbury Finance—according to our figures, at least—is equal to $405 for every man, woman, and child in Aotearoa. What we are talking about with this GST bill is equivalent to a mere $38 for every man, woman, and child in Aotearoa. It hardly bears comparison.

Removing GST from healthy food is a key Māori Party platform, as I said, and there are many reasons for that. The health impact is immediate; frankly, we are not, by a long shot, winning the battle of the bulge. New Zealand’s obesity ranking is third out of the 31 OECD countries. We trail behind only the United States and Mexico. At its most serious, 8,000 preventable deaths a year are related to poor nutrition and obesity, and there will be a rising cost of $1.3 billion in the next few years for type 2 diabetes alone.

One of the most ironic factors setting the scene for this bill is that it can cost a lot to be healthy. Members should just look at the supermarket trolleys these days. The fruit and veges are rapidly allocated to the too-costly basket, while the unhealthy items such as noodles, a bottle of Coke, or a packet of biscuits are far cheaper to stock up on.

I remind members of the reality of poverty and say to the House that it is easy enough to rattle out the statistics. Twenty-seven percent of Māori children live in poverty, and 150,000 children are categorised as being in severe or significant hardship. The estimated cost of child poverty is about $2.8 billion. The greater question is how any nation can afford not to eliminate poverty and not to do all it can to invest in the health and well-being of its people.

We are really proud of this bill and its challenge to the Government to exempt healthy foods from the goods and services tax. We believe that a responsible Government would encourage the purchase of healthy food and would make it possible for all people to benefit from fresh fruit and veges; to enjoy the luxury of lean meat, poultry, and seafood; and to have a bottle of milk in the fridge. It does not have to be difficult. It is hard to understand why a Government that is so committed to trans-Tasman relations is so reluctant to learn from Australia’s experience and the computerised model the Australian Taxation Office has developed to make it easy to take the tax off. The Australian tax experience has streamlined the process to make it simple for small businesses.

To sum up, for the minimal cost of $38 per person we can save billions of dollars in the health spend. We can do it tomorrow without too much difficulty. In doing so, we would be investing in the long-term health of the nation. I will end with a simple question that was posed by Gordon Campbell in his article “Everywhere else, countries recognise the need to exempt food from GST”. He asked: “The question then is not why do it—but why not do something so easy, so readily manageable by business, so justifiable on grounds of social justice, and so likely to deliver practical health benefits to the community?”. That is the question.

If this bill does not make it through tonight, we will be raising this matter again as an ongoing issue to support those who are struggling.

STUART NASH (Labour) : What a couple of interesting speeches we have just heard. I rise to support the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill. I will talk on two points, but before I do, I will comment on Heather Roy’s speech.

The ACT solution to the problem discussed in this bill is to give people seeds and let them grow their own vegetables. That is the solution from the party that talks about lowering taxes and empowering people. I invite ACT to take that solution to people who are living on the fourth floor of an apartment block and struggling to pay the bills. ACT should tell them to plant seeds, grow their vegetables, and do it all in the bathtub, because they do not need a shower. Goodness me!

The first of the two points I will make is that, although I support this bill, it was the Māori Party that supported legislation passed in this House to increase GST on all food, including healthy food. No one can say there are no politics in this bill, because that party supported the National Government’s Budget to increase GST on food, and it cannot escape that fact. My second point is that obesity is a national epidemic, which really does need to be addressed most urgently. The principle behind this bill is a step in the right direction. I find it a little backwards that a member of the Māori Party introduced this bill, when she voted for a Budget that increased GST on healthy food not 6 months ago. If the Māori Party had the courage of its convictions, it would have voted against National’s Budget, which increased the rate of GST on all food from 12.5 percent to 15 percent.

The Māori Party is in coalition with the National Party, which has made the following changes. In February 2009 Anne Tolley removed the clause in the National Administration Guidelines that stated that where food and beverages are sold on school premises, schools should make only healthy options available. That change provoked a New Zealand Medical Journal headline that read “School is back in New Zealand—and so is the junk food.” In May 2009 Tony Ryall removed a district health board and Ministry of Health target to reduce obesity in New Zealand. The 2009 Budget cuts included a cut of $32 million over 4 years from Healthy Eating - Healthy Action. In addition, $24 million was cut from the diabetes initiative “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa. Those are only four initiatives that have been removed by the National Government, which is supported by the Māori Party. I know we are not allowed to use the “h” word—and I will not—but it comes to mind.

My second point is that obesity is a disease that is placing enormous strain on our health system. The cost to the nation in terms of loss of productivity, sub-optimal productivity, and health-related illness is staggering, and is expected to grow. I will give members some facts. The direct cost of obesity to the health system is $500 million per annum—$500 million. The World Health Organization estimates that the cost of obesity is between 2 percent and 7 percent of a country’s health care costs. The OECD placed New Zealand as the third-fattest nation last year. In New Zealand 11 percent of deaths are attributable to obesity, 26.5 percent of adults are obese, 63.7 percent of Pasifika adults are obese, 41.7 percent of Māori adults are obese, and 20.9 percent of children are overweight.

Labour has raised the idea of removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables only, in recognition that we simply cannot have fresh fruit and vegetables out of the reach of a significant proportion of New Zealanders and their families. A study undertaken by the Auckland School of Medicine on the purchase habits of over 1,000 shoppers found that the price elasticity on healthy foods is about 0.85. That means that for every 1 percent drop in price, there is a corresponding 1 percent increase in the purchase of healthy food. In that study, two-thirds of the increase was attributed to fruit and vegetables. So there is merit in investigating this legislation, which will encourage all New Zealanders to eat healthier food.

In conclusion, this bill is flawed. It was introduced by a member who voted for a Budget that increased GST on healthy food. However, as I have mentioned, the principle behind it is right, because obesity is a national epidemic that is costing the country up to $1 billion a year. That is why we are supporting this bill being referred to a select committee.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : I, too, congratulate Rahui Katene on her good intentions in encouraging healthy eating through the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Health Food) Amendment Bill, but this bill is riddled with flaws. That is no better illustrated than by Labour, which when it was in Government did nothing for 9 long years. I ask members to listen to what Mr Phil Goff said to Radio New Zealand. The broadcaster reported that Labour’s leader had “told a meeting in Nelson that removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables would be positive for health reasons and could also ease the pressure on family budgets”—but, Mr Goff said—“it won’t adopt it as policy if it turns out it would create more red tape than it’s worth.” Only 2 minutes earlier, who but the colleague of Phil Goff, none other than Trevor Mallard, had posted the following on his blog—and I invite members to spot the irony. He stated: “In two weeks the Māori Party will vote for a very silly bill to take GST off ‘Healthy Food’. Just imagine trying to define that. And how much of each we are allowed to eat each hour/ day/ week before GST kicks in. And the army of inspectors to check the food. And the increase in GST or other tax to cover the diff.” On the one hand we have Phil Goff saying one thing, and on the other hand we have Trevor Mallard saying the other.

Tonight we have heard Annette King say that Labour thinks the definition is complicated. Rahui Katene said we should not worry about that, because all definitions could be dealt with by administrators. Clause 5, which inserts the definition of “healthy food” in section 2(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, contains a flaw in each of its paragraphs. For instance, paragraph (a) talks about canned foods. Can members remember all that sugar swilling around in some of those magnificent canned foods? Paragraph (b) mentions “all bread”, and I ask how much nutrition is contained in pure white, refined bread. In paragraph (c), cheese and plain milk are mentioned; to some people, those foods will just clog up the arteries. Paragraph (d) mentions poultry and seafood, but whether they are healthy foods all depends on the way they are cooked. This bill is riddled with flaws, and no one other than Labour members illustrates that so clearly.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I move, That the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It gives me pleasure as a first-term member of Parliament to introduce my first member’s bill, which was selected from the ballot at the first attempt. I hope to retain my personal record of keeping my speeches short and sweet, and hope that other contributors to this debate will follow in my footsteps by keeping their speeches short and sweet, as well.

The Military Manoeuvres Act of 1915 was enacted in the second year of the First World War and provides that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare that any land, for a period specified, be made available for military manoeuvres. After the manoeuvres are completed the officer commanding the forces engaged in them must, as far as possible, restore the land to its former condition. To the best of the knowledge of the New Zealand Defence Force, the Act has not been used for the last 30 years, largely as it was enacted specifically to deal with the extraordinary circumstances of mobilisation for the First World War. It is believed that no current proclamations remain in force and that there are no outstanding claims relating to past proclamations and military manoeuvres. So the Act sits on the statute book for no purpose, and the bill we are debating today will repeal the Act.

Some people might ask why we should bother to repeal this Act—it may be obsolete, but surely there are hundreds of obsolete Acts just like it. This is precisely the point. The Military Manoeuvres Act is representative of a very vital problem—that redundant legislation on the statute book must go. The New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 are totally obsolete. Other Acts, such as the Tourist and Health Resorts Control Act 1908, the Rent Restriction Act 1924, and the Patriotic and Canteen Funds Act 1947 require revisiting and re-examination as to whether they should be retained.

A member’s bill is one way to start the job, but Parliament needs to look at a more comprehensive approach. In case anyone thinks this is nonsense, the Law Commission has said that our statute law lacks coherence and is untidy and can be difficult to understand and use. My colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson has said that for the rule of law to be strong in New Zealand, our statute law must be clear and accessible. I am sure the whole House will agree with this, and support the efforts of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Law Commission to tidy up the statute book and make it easier to understand.

The Legislation Bill is being considered by the Regulations Review Committee at the moment. It will modernise and improve the law relating to the publication, availability, reprinting, revision, and official version of legislation. My member’s bill, the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, highlights an important problem, and I hope it will help to make the House aware of it. I look forward to the support of the House in passing this bill.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : It is a pleasure to follow the member Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who has just given one of his notoriously short and inconsequential speeches in the House. He barely made it to 4 minutes in speaking on his own bill. I say from the outset that Labour will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, because it repeals obsolete and outdated legislation. But, to be absolutely honest, we wonder why we are here tonight debating this bill when there are so many other issues that we could be dealing with.

John Hayes: You had 9 years and you didn’t do it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Does the member know why we did not do it? It was because there was absolutely no point. There is no reason whatsoever to be here, debating this bill.

Hon Annette King: Even the Minister’s smiling.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Even the Minister in the gallery—and I do not know whether he is looking down on the future Minister of Defence—is smiling about this bill tonight.

The bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act, under which land could be made available for military manoeuvres. The Act provided that after the manoeuvres, the land would have to be returned to the owner of the land in as close to the original condition as possible. However, to the best of our knowledge, the Act has not been used for at least 30 years. In fact, it may not have been used since World War I. So the Act is obsolete, and it is great that we are getting rid of it, but, seriously, is this why Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi came into Parliament? Is this what his supporters sent him to Wellington to do? Did the first Sikh member of Parliament came to Wellington to repeal the Military Manoeuvres Act? I do not think so. I do not think that this is what his supporters sent him to Wellington to do.

It is possible that his supporters thought that maybe he would come to Wellington and deal with some crime issues. I know that his community is deeply concerned about crime, and they probably thought that was an issue that Mr Bakshi could focus on. Or maybe he could turn his attention to assisting the members of the Indian community who will be so deeply affected by the 90-day no rights at work legislation. That could have been something that Mr Bakshi could turn his attention to. But, no; instead, he has decided that this bill is his piece of action. This is the bill that he will be remembered for. It is his signature piece of legislation. He will be remembered for two things: short speeches and the repeal of the Military Manoeuvres Act.

One has to wonder what this bill was even doing in the ballot in the first place. We had such short speeches from National members on a far more important bill that came out of the ballot, the Goods and Services Tax (Exemption of Healthy Food) Amendment Bill, in the name of Rahui Katene. They could not even manage to put a decent speech together for that bill, so why was this bill in the ballot? It was padding. There is no other reason whatsoever than padding to try to avoid any decent bills coming out of the ballot that would require the Government to debate some serious subjects. That was the reason for this bill. I have no doubt that that is the reason why Mr Bakshi was told to put the bill in the ballot. I have no idea what his motivation is, whatsoever.

We have to reflect on that in a week when an earthquake in Canterbury has caused damage that was totally unpredicted, and on a scale that we never thought we would see in this country. Who has responded to that? The military are there, doing a fine job. Just possibly, the military could have done with this bill. They could have done with the need to occupy some private land in order to carry out their manoeuvres. It is unlikely, but it is just possible that maybe Mr Bakshi has been a little quick out of the gate and this bill could have been useful to the military this week.

I do not intend to waste Parliament’s time by taking a long call on this bill. This bill is an absolute waste of time. It is a silly bill that Mr Bakshi should not be proud of. I hope that it speeds through the House, and that we see the back of it as quickly as possible. This is not a sensible use of Parliament’s time.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I was really interested in that bitter, twisted, perverse, and almost racist speech made by the member Iain Lees-Galloway on the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is unacceptable. The member cannot accuse anybody of racism.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The point of order is upheld.

JOHN HAYES: I will withdraw “racist” and substitute “patronising”. I point the member to—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the member’s comments and ask that you request him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The point of order is not upheld.

JOHN HAYES: I point the Labour member for Palmerston North, Iain Lees-Galloway, in the direction of the Law Commission report published in October 2008. I have reason to believe that the boss of the Law Commission is a former Labour Prime Minister. Is that right?

Iain Lees-Galloway: What’s your point?

JOHN HAYES: My point is this, and I quote from Sir Geoffrey Palmer: “A further problem with the current state of the New Zealand statute book is that a number of redundant Acts remain in force and needlessly clutter the law. Some old Acts still appear in the annual tables but are totally obsolete.” Mr Palmer points out: “For example, the New Zealand Institute of Journalists Act 1895 and the District Railways Purchasing Act 1885 both remain in force, and are both completely disused and unusable today.” We have been having earthquakes in Christchurch, so let me tell members about another piece of useless law—the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake Act 1931. Let me quote Sir Geoffrey again: “This Act still exists, but has not been reprinted since 1931—it was not even included in the supposedly comprehensive 1957 reprint.” Kamal Bakshi, my very sensible colleague, has read this and he understands that nothing is to be gained from cluttering the statute book with the presence of these obsolete Acts and provisions. As Sir Geoffrey, an erstwhile Labour leader, said: “They add clutter, but no value, to the statute book. Repealing them would be of great value. An accessible, navigable and clear statute book should have as little “dead wood” as possible.”

I suggest to the Labour Party that it could get rid of its Palmerston North dead wood, because that man does not have a chance of being re-elected in the next election; Palmerston North will return to National. I commend my colleague Mr Kamal Bakshi for a very, very sensible—

Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an important part of my culture that Indian names be pronounced properly. The member has made no effort, and I ask him to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am not sure. There was so much noise that I am not able to determine, or make judgment about, the accuracy of the nomenclature that was used.

Dr Rajen Prasad: It is certainly not Mr “Kamal”—or something like that—Bakshi. He has a wonderful name given to him by his parents. The member should at least try to pronounce it properly.

JOHN HAYES: Yes, and it is a Sikh name not an Indian name, Mr Assistant Speaker. I simply suggest that people should stop being misled by obsolete law that masquerades as live law. With those words, I support 100 percent my colleague and his bill. I look forward to it coming to our select committee.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I am reminded of the saying: “Cometh the hour, cometh the man.” Seriously, I was going to take a very brief call but I might take my full time because the last speaker has introduced a serious element to this particular debate. I wonder where was the conviction of his party to really say that National wants to do something serious about obsolete legislation. National has set up Mr Bakshi to take his time on a member’s bill that does something absolutely inconsequential. If this issue was so important for National, why did it not introduce an omnibus bill to take in all of those pieces of law that are now obsolete, and take the Law Commission’s recommendations seriously? I tell Mr Hayes that his party has not done that, and this bill is an abuse of Parliament.

I do not think, for a moment, that Mr Bakshi thought about this area of work when preparing himself to come into Parliament. The member has been put up by National. I wanted to congratulate him on being successful in his first member’s bill, but the junior Government whip knows that this bill is an abuse and is not serious. If it were serious, National should use the right elements of Parliament, introduce an omnibus bill, and put all of those obsolete Acts into it, and then let us fix it up. Labour would support that. This bill is an abuse.

Mr Bakshi, in everything he has said in this House, has properly talked about the things that are passionate to him and passionate to his people. What have they been? They have been violence issues. His first member’s bill might have been in an area that he was passionate about, and I would respect him as a fellow traveller. But this bill is not it. This bill is an abuse of the system, and it is not the way to use a member’s bill.

The Minister of Defence should be very worried if this really is the height of a member’s concerns about military matters. Mr Mapp, and I know he is listening, knows that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member was quite concerned about using appropriate titles.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The honourable Wayne Mapp; my apologies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Dr Mapp.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp; my apologies to a fellow traveller. I know how it is important it is to call doctors by their title.

This bill is an abuse. Labour will support the bill because it has a serious element to it, but this is not the way to do it. Members opposite are defending the indefensible. The member’s time could have been used far more seriously. But I do still congratulate Mr Bakshi on bringing a bill forward and having it pulled out of the ballot. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : It is my great pleasure to announce that the Green Party will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. I think the points made by the previous speaker, Rajen Prasad, were very apt—

Hon Annette King: Doctor!

KEITH LOCKE: Dr Prasad, sorry. I think an omnibus bill would be the best way out. We have the statues amendment legislation where a whole lot of little non-controversial changes can be put into one bill. Certainly, the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915 and other redundant Acts could be dealt with together. Perhaps Mr Bakshi’s bill will stimulate the Government into action, and perhaps in a month or two we will see such an omnibus bill.

I think this bill meets with support from a wide range of groups within the community. The ACT Party will be speaking next and no doubt as absolutist defenders of private property rights it will defend private property holders against the intrusions of people whether they be in suits or in kaki. I look forward to that speech. This bill will meet with the approval of pacifists who do not like any military manoeuvres at all. Also many older people in our society do not like loud noises, so they will be supporting this bill. For young children it can be frightening to see people running around with big guns in camouflage paint. Gardeners do not want their cabbages trampled by the boots of troops going through their fields, nor do they want their land affected by the toxic after-effects of explosions, although it has to be said that sometimes bombs going off aerate the soil. But most farmers want to do that themselves.

This bill has not been used for 30 years, although I did get an email 8 years ago from a woman who lived on Kawau Island right by the beach. She was on her morning walk and was very surprised to see camouflaged troops emerging from the shrubbery and then hear loud explosions. She and her neighbours were very upset that they had not been informed that the military was performing there. Perhaps the military thought this Act was still operational. I think one of the most important parts of the passage of this bill is that it puts an end to all of that. It is interesting that the Act was enacted in 1915 at a time when the military was more powerful, backed up by conservative politicians, where not only were the military grabbing people’s land for manoeuvres but it was conscripting many young people forcefully and sending them off to be slaughtered in their tens of thousands in Europe.

If we look at the bill in that context and look at it in the way the ACT Party will—defending private property rights—then whatever angle one comes from we must support Mr Bakshi in passing this bill tonight. Thank you.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) : That speech will be very hard to follow, I have to say. I should start by saying, just to put Mr Locke out of his misery, that the ACT Party will support the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. I think that he spoke with such passion about blowing things up that he secretly has a desire to have the ability to do so. I can help him out with that—it is not too late to join the army.

The Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill is absolutely the right legislation to pass. It is being done not for the reasons that the Labour members suggested—that Mr Bakshi has nothing to talk about—but because it is very important that we have our statutes and law books in a very good, tidy position. When laws have not been used and have not been reviewed, it is a long time before reform happens. In fact, if the previous Labour Government had been any sort of Government, it would have tackled regulatory reform in the same way that this Government is now doing. An omnibus bill would be a very good thing, but there is always a starting place, and Mr Bakshi has started us off with this bill. This House and the people of New Zealand should be thanking him for that.

This bill repeals the Military Manoeuvres Act 1915, which provides for the Governor-General by proclamation to declare that any land for the period specified is available for military manoeuvres. But given that this Act has not been used for well over 30 years now, it is time that it is not only reviewed but repealed. I am pleased to see that Steve Chadwick is agreeing with this in great mirth, even though I think she is still stuck on Mr Locke’s speech.

The Act was put in place to deal with the mobilisation for the First World War. It is difficult in this day and age to see that that situation and the need for the Act to be there would arise again. In fact if we did come to those circumstances, the Government would have the ability to quickly put in place legislation that would allow that to happen again, but, as I said, it is unlikely for that to happen. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. This is a very good move by Mr Bakshi to tidy up the statutes legislation, and it should be encouraged.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kia ora tātou. For starters, I acknowledge Mr Bakshi for having the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill pulled out of the hat, because I know what it is like trying to get a bill out of the hat, especially a member’s bill. So I congratulate him. I support the general comments in respect of wiping the Military Manoeuvres Act off the statute book. It has not been used for 30 years. Obviously, the Māori Party will support that move.

I want to take the opportunity to give some other background to this bill and to acknowledge a kuia who has passed away today, and to put that into some sort of perspective. There is a bit of history here, but it goes back to the Military Manoeuvres Act of 1915, which says any land can be made available to the New Zealand defence forces for military manoeuvres. In talking about that law today, for the information of those who do not know this, I say a kuia by the name Te Manawanui Pauro of Kaiwhaiki in Whanganui is being mourned. I am told that 103 years was her age. She passed away today. I can imagine that in her lifetime she would have welcomed home—[Interruption]—troops who went away overseas in World War I. So it adds another dimension to this debate to think that this amazing kuia, of over a century in age, in her lifetime would have seen and experienced the Military Manoeuvres Act in operation.

As other speakers have said, basically that law enabled the Governor-General to declare that any land could be made available for military manoeuvres, such as military training or war games. It was a special circumstance, I believe: a bill passed as a reaction to the advent of the First World War and the consequences of military mobilisation. The question is whether it is still necessary to conduct such military manoeuvres today. In light of the fact that the legislation has not been used for 30 years, the answer is that it is probably not necessary.

Any legislation that is used to justify the taking of Māori land will provoke extra scrutiny, in particular from us. So in the course of researching this bill, we approached the Ministry of Defence to understand whether the law had had any immediate impact on Māori land, Māori landowners, or even Māori personnel working in the forces. The Military Manoeuvres Act did not permit the taking of land for defence purposes, but rather permitted the New Zealand Army to occupy land for military manoeuvres by proclamation—in other words, for temporary activity. No interest in the land was ever required, so that is pretty good. The land always remained owned by the legal owner, and its use by the Defence Force ended with the end of the military manoeuvres authorised by the proclamation.

That is not to say that Māori land was not acquired for defence purposes—it certainly was—but that was under the Public Works Act 1981, which was obviously a fair way on in time from the Military Manoeuvres Act. The Public Works Act was the focus of my member’s bill earlier in the year. The Waitangi Tribunal has found that the compulsory taking of land and resources without consent, and sometimes without compensation, by legislation unsanctioned by Māori communities has given rise to an enduring and powerful grievance. My bill proposed that land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants, or that compensation should be offered. As we all know, that fine bill was voted down, so the vexed issue of the acquisition of Māori land and, more important, its return will remain to be dealt with on another day. Suffice it to say that the impact of the Public Works Act has been significant right across areas of current legislation and in this bill. For instance, land was acquired in 1915 at Featherston for a camping ground under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1908. In fact, the New Zealand Defence Force still holds lands at Trentham Military Camp under the public works and reservations legislation.

We cannot address the issue of the public works legislation in this bill, but we see no reason not to support the initiative put forward by Mr Bakshi to repeal the outdated Military Manoeuvres Act. As such, as I said, we will support this bill when the vote is taken on it.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : First of all, I thank everyone who has contributed to the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, and supported it. I would like to clarify that Opposition members mentioned what I am passionate about. There is no doubt that law and order was the issue at the previous election, and this Government has been very serious about it. In the past 21 months the Hon Simon Power and the Hon Judith Collins have introduced 18 bills that are related to law and order. I think that this Government is quite serious about this issue. Those members do not have to worry, because we have great leadership that is looking after the country in the area of law and order. I thank everyone who has contributed to this bill.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I move, That the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my pleasure to introduce this bill to the House today. There are so many problems with the current legislation that it is difficult to know where to start. The original bill was passed in the dying days of the last Government, at a time when after 8 years of suspecting that it was out of touch the people established that was the case beyond all doubt. This law has turned good parents into criminals; it is as simple as that. Members of the previous Government decided that they were better parents than the people themselves. They forced upon the nation their other-worldly view that parents who smack their kids are no different from the parents who bash, abuse, and kill their kids. I must sadly add that those members were aided and abetted in that view by the National Opposition.

I could not explain the bill’s purpose any better than the explanatory note does, and to save time I will not read it all. The first paragraph reads: “The purpose of this Bill is to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitute a new section to provide that parents, and those in the place of parents, no longer commit a criminal offence if they use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour;”. It then talks about the definition of “reasonable force”.

One of the many terrible ironies is that this bill is really no different from the very good amendment that the member Chester Borrows, who is in the House, proposed during the debate on the law now in force. The need for this amendment has only grown stronger.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: The world’s moved on.

DAVID GARRETT: I heard a silly comment from someone that the world has moved on. Indeed it has; experience has shown us that this bill not only does not achieve anything but it is counter-productive.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues were no doubt hoping the recent Latta review of the anti-smacking law, as it has become known, would be the end of the matter. Perhaps it might have been, had the report not been a complete and utter whitewash. To this end a series of case studies were completely distorted by the Latta review, to back up the wishful claim that the bill is working well. I will provide just one example, for now, from the Latta review. A father who was discharged without conviction for shaking his daughter’s shoulders suddenly became, in the Latta review, a man who was convicted and then discharged for punching his daughter three times in the head and mouth. That is completely incorrect, on both limbs. Discharged without conviction and convicted and discharged are two very different things; even more different is shaking by the shoulders, compared with punching in the head and mouth. There are plenty of other examples that I am sure my colleague the Hon John Boscawen will touch on later.

The bill was originally in John Boscawen’s name and he has worked tirelessly at public meetings all over the country to assure parents that at least some MPs in this House are not deaf to parents’ concerns. Once upon a time it seemed that the Prime Minister, John Key, was also listening, but sadly no longer. When writing the notes for this speech, it occurred to me that based on past quotes I could have asked the Prime Minister to write my entire speech for me. I will share some of those quotes with the House. Mr Key once described the anti-smacking law, the law that is in place now, as “a complete and utter dog’s breakfast, badly drafted, and extremely vague.” He also said—and here is the kicker: “The Borrows’ amendment was the right place to settle.” But Mr Borrows was browbeaten into voting against his own amendment. It is shameful, absolutely shameful, that the system does not allow Government members to vote for this bill—and there are many of them, and we know it, who would very happily vote for this bill tonight if they were not under the whip. Another Key quote said that linking a light smack with child abuse was “bloody insulting”. He is right; it is bloody insulting to compare a light smack on the leg with a bash.

Hon Maryan Street: Watch your language.

DAVID GARRETT: I am quoting the Prime Minister. Yet that was the argument put forward by many proponents of the current law. I will never forget my introduction to politics, if you like, at a meeting in Helensville—in fact, Ms Fenton was there too—that was addressed by Sue Bradford, the former Green member. After the meeting was over I took her to one side and had a quiet word. I asked her if she really believed that any swines who thought it was OK to hit their kids with a piece of wood or pipe would not do so as a result of that law change, and she said no. I was astounded. Sue Bradford, who was behind the legislation, admitted that the legislation in place now does absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse. What it does do is criminalise good parents.

Since the law has been passed more than 20 children have been murdered—20 children. This law did nothing for 6-month-old Cezar Taylor. It did nothing to stop the murders of Nia Glassie, Cash McKinnon, or any of the other children killed by those who were supposed to protect them. Notifications of possible child abuse received by Child, Youth and Family numbered 125,000 in the past 12 months; 125,000 is 57 a day, every day. The anti-smacking law has done absolutely nothing to change that. In fact, the numbers have gone up. That is evidence alone, surely, that not only is the legislation ineffective, but it has made things worse.

Something that the somewhat hysterical debate at the time seemed to forget was that beating—bashing—one’s child was already against the law. What made anyone think that the anti-smacking legislation would cause such parents—and I use the word reluctantly—to think twice before inflicting such terrible harm? There are many people who disagree with the idea of a light smack. That is their prerogative; that is their right. When things go awry is when their views are forced on other equally good parents who choose to give their children a light smack for the purposes of correction. They do not give them a bash, they do not use a weapon, but they give them a light smack. They are a world apart, as the Prime Minister admitted in his speeches when the law currently in force was before the House.

New section 59(2), inserted by clause 5, clearly defines unreasonable force and thus removes the confusion many parents have about the current law. It also removes an enormous amount of power from the police—power that has often been improperly used. It is pretty straightforward. If the child suffers more than transitory or trifling injury then there has been unreasonable force. If the discipline—and it is not discipline—is, as stated in subsection (2)(b), “inflicted by any weapon, tool, or other implement;”, then it is unreasonable force. If it is, as stated in subsection (2)(c), carried out “by any means that is cruel or degrading.”, it is unreasonable force. That is what lawyers call codifying the law. Such a provision, as Chester Borrows and John Key once recognised, would help prevent the law from criminalising good parents. It also recognises that those few cases that escape conviction under the old law, such as the use of a riding crop or a piece of wood, were and are unacceptable.

This bill should satisfy those who genuinely feel that the old law did not go far enough, as well as the 87 percent of New Zealanders who said last year in a properly constituted referendum—not some telephone poll or write-in survey—that the current law has gone much too far. It will not please those who feel that smacking should be banned altogether—but that is OK. It is not for us politicians to tell parents how to raise their children. It is not our job to judge parents for disciplining their children as they see fit, as long as they stay within the confines of reasonable law. If we fail to pass this legislation that is exactly what we are doing; 122 of us here are saying to the parents of New Zealand that we know better than they do. That is the kind of arrogance that got Labour kicked out of Government, probably for the next 20 years. Labour members said: “We know better than you.”, to the 87 percent of New Zealanders who voted against the current law. I will finish with another quote from the Prime Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. Before I take the next speaker the member needs to advise the House what select committee this bill will go to.

DAVID GARRETT: At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. It is normal custom in the House, at the beginning of bill like this, that the member advises the House which select committee the bill will be referred to. It will be referred to the Social Services Committee.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to make a number of points clearly and succinctly in respect of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. On the face of it, a number of the comments that the previous speaker, Mr Garrett, made were valid, and I agree with him that the Supplementary Order Paper that I put forward in 2007—which the member now puts forward as a bill—was valid for the time.

David Garrett: What’s changed?

CHESTER BORROWS: A number of things have changed, and I will make those points very clearly.

We have to look at where this bill came from. The bill came from a Supplementary Order Paper that was drafted by me in response to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, which was a member’s bill in the name of Sue Bradford that sought to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. I spent a number of months on the Justice and Electoral Committee looking at that bill and hearing submissions from around the country. The reason why the Supplementary Order Paper—the bill, as it is now; its provisions form this bill before the House—was valid at the time and is not valid now is that we did not have the numbers. When the Supplementary Order Paper—now this bill—came before the House the Labour Party and its support parties had the numbers to defeat it, and it contained all the words that are in this bill before the House now. What changed? Well, there needed to be a compromise position, which was arrived at through negotiation between John Key and Helen Clark. If we had done nothing, if we had done what that member, Mr Garrett, probably wishes we had done—stuck to our guns, put forward our Supplementary Order Paper, and been defeated—then the law would be in a much worse state than it currently is. It was the negotiation between those parties that actually brought about a compromise, changed the wording of the bill, and gained support from across the House, apart from the ACT Party and one or two other members.

I worked hard to get support for Supplementary Order Paper 86. I spoke to the Green Party, I spoke to the Labour Party, I spoke to the Māori Party, I spoke to United Future, and I spoke to New Zealand First. The vote was split in New Zealand First. We had the support of the ACT Party. We did not have the support of the Māori Party, and it was clear we were going to lose. I believed then, and I believe strongly now, that it would have been wrong to say: “OK, stuff you. Let’s argue about it at the next election.” That would have left New Zealand parents in a worse position than they are in now, even with the compromise in place.

I will move on and ask the member who has just resumed his seat, David Garrett, where he thinks this bill will go. If this bill is passed tonight it will be referred to a select committee, and all of a sudden the debate will not be about the words “transitory” and “trifling”. The whole debate will be about when parents can hit their kids, under what circumstances they can hit their kids, how hard they can hit their kids, or what marks they should be able to leave behind on their children. The debate will be about whether they are allowed to use implements, on what occasions they are allowed to hit their kids, and who can hit kids. Will it be confined to parents or will a person acting in place of a parent be able to hit those kids? I believe that the difference between back then and now is this: we put forward the Supplementary Order Paper in the course of business, and if we had had the numbers, then it would have passed and we would not have got into a debate about such things as whether a person can hit a child between their shoulders, on the tops of their knees, on the bottom of their legs, or on the fleshy parts of the body and what sort of marks one can leave behind. That is a distasteful debate to have.

If that member thinks that it is seemly to go around the country listening to hundreds of submitters talking about when it is appropriate to hit kids and what level of injury one can leave behind on the kids—a debate we would not have had around the country if the Supplementary Order Paper had passed—then we are on different planets, quite frankly. I heard all those submitters. I heard a number of people argue that they have a God-given right to belt their kids and that they should be able to smack their kids. They said they should be able to use a rod to hit their children.

It was interesting that the vast number of those submitters came from fundamentalist Christians who quoted scripture to me. I took great delight in quoting scripture back at them. Never once did those submitters quote the scripture that says: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” All they talked about was sparing the rod and spoiling the child. All they did was talk about their God-given right to discipline their children in the way they saw fit. Where the total evil in that position comes from is this: in almost every case where a child was beaten with an implement and where the case went forward to a prosecution—including our famous horse-whipping, stock-whipping woman—the beating started in order to discipline the child, and to control and to correct the child. I believe that if we were given the opportunity to mandate discipline, control, and correction in the same way, then we would see an abuse of the legislation that allowed that to happen.

We know that although parents protest that they use a range of discipline regimes, such as time out, the naughty step, loss of privileges, a growling, apologies, compromises, and all that sort of stuff, when parents start to smack, smacking becomes the default position very quickly. It gains immediate compliance. Children stop doing what they are doing, because smacking hurts. They do not learn not to do the behaviour; they learn not to get caught doing the behaviour. Through the work of the SKIP programme, which has been incredibly successful, we have seen that after only 2 years of implementation 34 percent of parents knew of its existence, knew how to access it, and said that they implemented the strategies for disciplining children in a non-violent way.

The law has changed the future for many young children. As much as there are parents who still give their children a light smack—and I would not argue that they were child beaters—I make the point that the vast majority of parents want to live within the law, so they do not use corporal punishment and they do look for other strategies. It is quite right for the member to point to the large number of respondents to polls and surveys, but at the same time he has to understand that the practice of the law as it is now is different from the letter of the law in many aspects of our law.

I will take an example, which maybe is an extreme example far away from this piece of legislation. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act there is a presumption before the criminal court that anyone in possession of more than 28 grams of cannabis is in possession for the purpose of supply. The police never ever charge anyone for possession for the purpose of supply when all people have with them is 29 grams of cannabis or more. Why not? The police realise that, actually, practice has overtaken the presumption that is in the law. So I am saying to the House that the police use their discretion to look at who they have in front of them and apply the letter of the law accordingly. That is why we have not seen a huge flourish of parents appearing before the courts and being charged with assault on a child over an incident of light smacking. In fact, in the last year, in 2009, there were 33 complaints of smacking and there was one prosecution that was later withdrawn. To put that into perspective, I note that over the same period there were 83,000 complaints of domestic violence.

I believe that the police are working in the public interest in the enforcement of the current legislation. I think it is written like a dog’s breakfast. I think it is ugly, and on the face of it, with all the legalese, it is not easy to understand. I think my Supplementary Order Paper was a hell of a lot better than the dog’s breakfast we have. But at the time we did not have the numbers, and in this House we need the numbers. If members do not have the numbers, then members have to compromise. We compromised, and like it or loathe it, it works.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : What an excellent speech from Mr Borrows tonight. I think that Mr Borrows has probably summed up for the majority of this House what we think about this bill—the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. It is a member’s bill in the name of David Garrett, ACT MP. It was John Boscawen’s bill, and I know that he will be disappointed that he is not taking it through the House tonight, but I think the baubles of office were probably more tempting than staying on the backbench to pursue this bill that was his passion.

This bill repeals section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 and substitutes a new section to provide that parents can use reasonable force to correct their children’s behaviour. Labour opposes this bill. Section 59 was previously amended in an attempt by this House to change the culture of violence towards children in New Zealand. It was agreed to by the majority of this House, although Mr Garrett wanted to lay the blame on Labour and said that it would mean that we would be out of power for many years. It was agreed by the majority of members in this House in a sensible debate and compromise, so that we could move on from this bill.

No one is asking for this change. This is a political move by the ACT Party, whose time has gone. As Chester Borrows said, nobody wants to go back out and listen to submissions on how we should hit our children, how hard, and with what. We want to get on and ensure that we do the best we can for our children in New Zealand; that we do the best we can with programmes like Incredible Years, SKIP, and positive parenting programmes to help parents and give them the tools to deal with their children. This is a political bill. I say to ACT that its time has gone, we have all moved on, and I suggest that the House discharge this bill from the House as fast as possible.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare. I rise to speak against the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I agree with previous speakers that this issue has long been debated, that we are seeing a cultural change, and that that is what is necessary in this country. I can speak from personal experience as an elderly primigravida, which is what I learnt I was when I had my first daughter at over the age of 35.

Simon Bridges: Say it again.

HEKIA PARATA: An elderly primigravida. I thought I had some kind of disease when I was approached and told that clinically that is what I was.

In any event, I grew up in a home where smacking did not occur. I grew up in a home where boundaries were set for us without violence being threatened. I did grow up in a home that was rather sexist, in that different rules were applied to the boys than to the girls, but we all learnt to behave very well, and as colleagues in the House will observe, I am a very well-behaved person. I owe that to very, very good parenting. I had the opportunity to learn from my parents the kind of parent that I wanted to be.

Very early in my marriage we explicitly discussed how we would bring up children, and we explicitly agreed that we would never smack our children. What that forces one to do is to find other measures to bring about the kind of discipline and behaviour that one wants to have in the home, and we have managed to get through 17 years of our daughters’ lives without smacking them. From observation and feedback I can say that our daughters are regular, normal children who will take every licence and push every boundary that they possibly can. But they know and understand when we as parents tell them that enough is enough, and it does not require us to lay a hand on them physically. It seems to me that if we remove that as an option, then all of us are forced to find other options by which to get the outcome that we want. I am not suggesting that it is all rosy and sweet. Yes, there is shouting, doors get slammed, and all those kinds of things happen. I know it is a shock and surprise, but actually that can and does happen.

My point is that the legislation is working; the Latta, Broad, and Hughes review has found that it is working. Practice within Child, Youth and Family has been improved as a result of that review, so that parents in the wider community who think they need any greater assistance are able to get it freely and quickly. To give some sort of balance to this discussion, I say my understanding is that over 80,000 domestic violence incidents were reported in 2009. Only 33 were raised in terms of the Crimes Act. Only one charge was laid under section 59 of that Act, and that was subsequently withdrawn. If that is not an indication of a law that is working, I do not know what is. We will not be supporting this bill, and I personally applaud the fact that we will not. Kia ora.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I acknowledge the contribution made by Chester Borrows, much of which I agree with. He gave an excellent history of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. Some of the most serious threats that our kids face are violence and abuse, so we must maintain and strengthen the protections in law for children, including those in the Crimes Act, as Sue Bradford worked incredibly hard and successfully to do.

I will look at the broader issues and look at the status of children in Aotearoa today. How are our kids actually doing? Compared internationally, they are doing very poorly indeed. New Zealand ranks 29th out of 30 countries in the OECD for child health and safety—almost at the bottom. Out of 30 OECD countries, New Zealand is ranked 21st for infant mortality and 29th for measles immunisation. Fifteen percent of all children in this country live in poor households. Thirty-one percent of children in this country live in overcrowded homes. In households that suffer from food scarcity, body mass index—BMI—tends to be higher, and children suffer from poor nutrition and long-term health impacts.

Hundreds of children change schools every Monday because their families live in overcrowded and insecure housing. That change of schools is undermining their education and leading to future underachievement and low incomes. On other international scores, New Zealand is fourth from the bottom of all OECD countries for injury deaths amongst 1 to 4-year-olds. New Zealand has 14 times the average OECD rate of rheumatic fever. It has rates of whooping cough and pneumonia that are five to 10 times greater than those of the UK and the US. Its rate of child maltreatment death is four to six times higher than the rates of OECD countries with the best results—four to six times higher.

The truth is that our society treats kids really badly. Too many of our kids live in miserable housing and suffer significant illness and Third World diseases. Our kids suffer terribly from accidents and, worse, from deliberate maltreatment at the hands of adults. Knowing all this—and it is easy to find this out—the only solution that the ACT Party proposes is to remove some of the meagre legal protections that our children have against grown-ups who hit kids. That is the ACT solution to the poverty and inequality suffered by our children and their families—to make it legal for grown-ups to hit kids. That is ACT’s solution. That kind of political leadership, which invests so much effort into legislation that will increase harm to children, is perhaps an indicator of why our kids are doing so badly. So much more has to be done and we are wasting time on legislation like this.

We know that if we reduce the gap between rich and poor and address inequality, we can raise the living standards and well-being of all New Zealand children. Reducing the gap between rich and poor is good for everyone in our society, not just the poorest. So let us spend our time dealing with that. How about we guarantee the essentials for every New Zealand child so that we can guarantee them the opportunities they need. How about we make sure that every child has a warm, dry, secure home. Let us build homes for the 300,000 kids who need them. That would be good use of our time. Let us eliminate the discrimination in income support that the children of beneficiary families suffer. Let us give the poorest families the extra 60 bucks a week that working families get. Those extra 60 bucks a week for the poorest families would mean that they would not have to choose between paying the rent and paying the power bill.

Let us stop wasting our time on bills like this that seek to injure children, and, instead, build a society that treats our kids with the respect and the dignity they deserve. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I will take only a brief call. I agree with Metiria Turei that New Zealand has problems with violence against children. We have cultural issues as well as a long history of violence against children, and it will take a cultural shift in order to fix that problem over time.

David Garrett: This hasn’t done it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Garrett says that this has not done it. Well, cultural shifts take time. We saw that in terms of how long it took to reduce smoking rates and to reduce drunken driving. Similarly, I am sure that over time we will see a cultural shift away from inappropriate physical punishment of children. The legislation that this Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill effectively seeks to overturn was a step in the right direction. I agree with Chester Borrows that now is not the time to revisit that legislation; it does send a strong signal. There is nothing greatly wrong with the current situation. It is not being abused by the police. I see no reason to vote in favour of David Garrett’s bill.

Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : It is a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the ACT Party on the first reading of the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to speak on this bill because, as Annette King alluded to and as members know, I introduced this bill to the House. I thank my colleague David Garrett for taking on the bill, on my behalf.

Let us look at some of the comments that have been made this evening. Annette King said that no one is asking for the change. Well, I wonder what planet she is on. Over 300,000 people took the trouble to put their names to a petition asking for a referendum on this issue. Over 300,000 people took the trouble to ask for a referendum, and 1.4 million voted to change the law—1.4 million; 87.4 percent. Annette King has the gall to sit there and say that no one wants a change in the law, and no one is asking for this. She should listen to the people of New Zealand. This is absolutely about reflecting the views of 1.4 million people; 87 percent of people. It is no wonder that politicians have a bad reputation amongst the people of New Zealand; it is no wonder. Even when 1.4 million people—87 percent—voted to change the law, Labour members sit there and totally ignore these people and show their absolute contempt for them.

However, let me make one acknowledgment. I thank Annette King for the time that she took to discuss this bill. I asked to speak with Mr Goff and he gave me the courtesy of his time, and Annette King joined the discussion. For that I am grateful; I appreciated the opportunity. I was unsuccessful in convincing Labour members to support the bill, but I certainly appreciated the opportunity to speak.

Let me turn now to some comments that Chester Borrows made. He said: “Look, this law is based on my Supplementary Order Paper. If we had had the numbers, we would have passed this law.” So Chester Borrows is saying that had the National Party had the numbers 4 years ago when this law was originally passed, this is what would have happened. Chester says: “Well, it’s a dog’s breakfast. It’s a dog’s breakfast; it’s a law that is not easy to understand.” What do I say to this Parliament? I say surely it is the job of this Parliament to pass laws that can be understood, and that can be enforced. Surely we have no greater responsibility than to pass laws that can give people certainty.

I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the explanatory note of the bill. In particular, it states: “Section 59(4) also creates confusion with its reference to Police discretion. According to members of Parliament, the intention of this subsection is to provide a safeguard against the consequences of banning reasonable physical correction, so that parents will not be ‘subject automatically to investigation and police prosecution’ if they give their child a light ‘smack’ …”. The law is not certain. Although Mr Borrows referred to 33 people being charged, I ask how many thousands of parents do not actually know what the law is. They do not actually have the confidence. I say to Mr Borrows, and to National members, that surely we owe the people of New Zealand a law that is simple and that can be understood.

My bill was drawn out of the ballot just 3 days after the results of the referendum were announced. It was drawn out of the ballot at 12.00 on a Wednesday, and by 4.30 that afternoon, 4½ hours later, National had called a press conference and said it would not be supporting my bill. National members said they would not give effect to those 1.4 million people, the 87 percent of New Zealanders, who voted in the referendum for a change in the law. Annette King says this is political. It is not political, I say to Annette King; it is representing and standing up for the rights of those people. If the member wants to ignore them, I say good luck to her, but I am not prepared to and I am very proud that my ACT colleagues and I take the same view. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I need to say from the very outset that the Māori Party say ka kite anō, haere rā, kaua e hoki mai, hasta luego, and ciao to the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill, which is purported here by Mr Garrett.

The Māori Party supported the original legislation for the abolition of the use of force as a justification for child discipline, which amended section 59 of the Crimes Act. There were two reasons why we supported that legislation. Firstly, we supported the concept of children being able to live in an environment free from violence. That was No. 1, and it was consistent with numerous traditional accounts of tikanga in terms of the care of children. Secondly, we supported the original legislation because it was in the context that underpins the kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa movements. Sure, not every Māori child is involved in those movements, but it was an approach taken that we hope will continue to spread throughout the whole community.

Right from the start of the kōhanga reo movement in 1982, it was stated that mokopuna were not to be smacked. The no-smacking kaupapa both established the preciousness of children and continued the manner in which our tūpuna reared children. In strengthening parents, kaiako extended whānau through involvement in kōhanga, and the aim was to show that smacking was more a manifestation of adult behaviour than that of children’s behaviour. Kōhanga reo whānau and wider whānau benefited from taking the time to understand themselves in relation to raising tamariki and mokopuna.

It is important to have aspirational kaupapa to guide and inform party policy and conduct. The Māori Party saw the aspirational intent of the bill as an important aspect of encouraging whānau to recreate and maintain violence-free homes. At the time we were very clear. What is wrong about holding out hope that we can reclaim our tikanga and find our own solutions to violence? We want to promote a more positively framed approach to addressing issues of violence, instead of promoting the punitive approaches that we see in this bill.

We want to inspire a change of direction. Instead of focusing on what was wrong within our whānau, hapū, and iwi, we want to expend our energies on a positive future for Māori, by focusing on our strengths, and by mobilising our actions to change that which was ours to change. That is pretty much at the heart of the Whānau Ora approach, which is about taking issues back to whānau for them to address amongst themselves.

On reflection, 3 years after the amendment to section 59, it is hardly as if the world has come to an end, as other speakers have said. In operation, the law does not criminalise parents, as was always the threat. The general consensus is that the current law is working well. Parents facing charges of assault against their children are prevented from using a defence of reasonable force for the purpose of correction. I absolutely support that.

I want to remind the House that—as if we need reminding—New Zealand ranks at the bottom of the list of OECD countries for children who die from accident and injury, and Metiria Turei touched on some of those incidences. In fact, we rank in the bottom four for children over 1 year old. There is no way that the Māori Party will compromise on our aspirations for a violence-free Aotearoa. So we reject this bill absolutely.

Mr Garrett talked about the fact that the anti-smacking legislation has done nothing to stop the murders of young children. He said that that was the rationale, for some reason, for this bill coming to the House. So the inevitable question would be: has the “three strikes” legislation stopped any murders? I do not think so. Kia ora tātou.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, for the opportunity to speak on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. I believe that most of the significant arguments for why this bill should not proceed have already been articulated by my senior colleagues, so I am happy just to share some experiences. The first experience is from this morning when the Social Services Committee visited a local organisation down the road from here. It was an organisation that deals with young men, predominantly, who have suffered in their lives from their homes. We sat there and listened to the presentation from those young men about how many of them were abused, violently, sexually, by people who supposedly loved them. If members had heard the experiences of those young people, then I believe that all of us would be united in saying to the ACT Party that what it is attempting to do tonight is not OK.

I am reminded that when I was a young man my father said to me constantly: “E fafaga le fanau a manu i fua ma lau o laau, ae fafaga le fanau a tagata i upu.” That means that the children of birds are fed with fruits and the leaves of trees, but the children of men are fed with words. They are words of patience, they are words of love, and they are words of example. If we as parents have to resort to force, whether it be reasonable, or whatever the force is that this bill is attempting to define, then we have failed in providing words of encouragement, words of support, words of love, and words of faith to our young people.

To further illustrate my point, once upon a time I bought a mandarin tree, and because I am quite busy I just dug a hole and put it next to my driveway. I did not take any notice of that mandarin tree and it grew crooked. My car ran into the leaves as it grew, and, finally, one part of that mandarin tree was dead. I had to cut that particular part. But I was too late when I was trying to remove the dead part of that tree, and it eventually affected the whole tree. The point I am making is that if we do not feed our children with words of support, words of love, words of encouragement, and words of faith, then it will be too late, and irrespective of whether we cut their hand, or whip it, or use reasonable force as determined by that small party there, I would say we have wasted our time.

The community as a whole has moved on. I constantly hear on the rugby field, any time somebody attempts to be violent, whether with words or facial features, that there is always somebody out on the field saying that it is not OK. I think we have created a culture where we respect our young people. We are respecting the fact that these young children will become future leaders of our society, of our family, of our community, and, indeed, of this country. If we now resort to the old ways, then I have to say there is no place for this bill, no place for the kind of rhetoric that is coming from that particular party, and I again repeat that it is not OK; it is not OK. Thank you for this opportunity.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : I would have, and I almost have, some sympathy for David Garrett and his Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill except for this inconvenient truth—and no, I am not talking about Al Gore’s climate change movie—that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. In saying that, or in trying to argue something along those lines, David Garrett sounds a little bit like Chicken Licken who thought that the sky was going to fall in. We all know the story of Chicken Licken. An acorn fell on his head—not a lamington, I say to Mr Boscawen—and, ultimately, after going off scaremongering to Goosey Loosey and Henny Penny and the like, he was eaten by Foxy Loxy. So I am not sure if there is a moral in that for Mr Garrett, but that is a bit what this is like. The truth of the matter is that good parents are not being criminalised for a light smack; the sky has not fallen.

The Government is not at all complacent in this area. We took the referendum that this country had very seriously. There were reviews and reports by people such as Peter Hughes, the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development; Howard Broad, the Commissioner of Police; and Nigel Latta, who is very well known to New Zealanders. They looked through the policies and the procedures in this area and researched extensively. What they found in the end is exactly as I have said: good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. The law is working and they reinforced that view. We also have in this country a situation where the Government has invited police to report on a 6-monthly or an annual basis for the next 3 years on the operation of the law in this area. They will be doing that. But I come back to what they are finding and what the reports and reviews have found: good parents are not being criminalised. If we were to find that, and if the sky was to fall—and I do not think that it will—this Government is open to looking at things. But we believe that the law is working as intended. We want to give parents the assurance that a National-led Government will continue to monitor the way the law is being implemented, but I say to Mr Garrett that the truth is that good parents in this country are not being criminalised for a light smack. I think that will long continue.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I have not been here long enough to play the silly game where I pretend that the vote will be anything other than what it is to be on the Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill. We all know what the vote will be, so I will use my last 5 minutes to remind those who are listening to this debate of a few facts.

The previous Labour Government cynically ignored the people who demanded a referendum on the question of smacking prior to the last election—more than 300,000 of them. There was plenty of time to conduct that referendum at the same time as the election, but Labour decided not to do so because it knew very well that although it would probably lose the election, if it drew the attention of the public to its stand on this issue, it would definitely lose it. So Labour cynically delayed the referendum. Labour cost the country $10 million to do a postal referendum 6 months later. But that delay did not work, as 1.4 million people took the trouble to fill in their ballot papers, go down to the post office or whatever it is called, and post them. There were 1.4 million people who said a light smack should not be a criminal offence, versus 100,000 who supported the current law. I tell members to make no mistake about that.

There is some truth in what we have heard from the other side of the House. Some good police discretion may well be operating, but that is not the point. The law as it stands criminalises anyone who smacks a child for the purpose of correction. Labour cynically ignored 1.4 million people, and this Government and those members over there are doing exactly the same as Labour did. I have not been here long enough to play the game, so I am sorry if I am breaking some conventions.

Throughout today, member after member has called me or spoken to me to say I should make it stop. They have asked me to stop the emails that have been flooding into their offices today from thousands of thousands of people. I had nothing to do with that campaign. I did not know what members were talking about. There was nobody I could call to make it stop, even if I had wanted to.

Everyone forgot that section 59 of the Crimes Act had only ever been a defence. We have heard stupid speeches in this House since I have been here about defences, and the defence of provocation was another one. There is a foolish idea that if we offer up a defence, the legislation will work. The previous version of section 59, more often than not, did not work. It was a defence.

What will happen to this bill very shortly is a spit in the face of all the 1.4 million people in this country who took the trouble to vote by postal referendum to say they did not think it should be a criminal offence to smack a child for the purposes of correction. It is a case of 122 of us in this House saying we know better than all of them. That is just utter arrogance, which I thought we had got rid of when we got rid of the sad lot of members opposite from Government.

As I said in my first speech, the current version of section 59 fails the second test of efficacy. Had the instances of child abuse plummeted since it was passed, I think we would have quietly let the issue fade away, but that has not happened. Since it was passed, 20 children have been killed. Sue Bradford, the author of the original bill, said 18 months ago that she knew it would not stop one bad parent from bashing his or her child, and she was right. That legislation has failed the test of democracy and the test of efficacy. It has not worked, and it has not reduced child abuse at all. The nonsense, frankly, that came from Su’a William Sio, and the way in which he said it, was almost comical. In 18 months, according to him, we have become a wonderful, loving, non-violent society. I say if only that were so; it has not happened. We keep on bashing children, because the people who bash and abuse children are not the good parents who wish to smack their children.

I say to members that they should go ahead, do what is going to happen, and spit in the face of 1.4 million people, but we in the ACT Party are putting it down in Hansard that we think parents know better than we do, and decisions on parenting are better made by them than by us.