Amy Adams MP - Speeches

Appropriation (2010/2011 Estimates) Bill

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:51:00 +1200

As the previous speaker, Craig Foss, just said, it is a pleasure to take a call in this estimates and appropriations debate. It is a useful time, actually, to stop and look back at the 2008 election, when this National-led Government under John Key came to power. When New Zealanders elected us, as they did overwhelmingly in 2008, to lead this country through the recession, they did it on a platform of aspiration and ambition. We did not get mired in the mud-slinging and negative campaigning from members on the other side of the House. We stood up—John Key stood up and our members stood up—and said we thought that New Zealand could do better than it had been doing. We had high hopes for New Zealand, and we offered to New Zealanders a positive vision for a way forward and a package of economic growth that could lead them into the future. That package was the key to our plan, because we knew that in order to be ambitious for New Zealand, and to deliver more for New Zealanders, we had to address the issue of economic growth. That was what had been holding this country back for so long.

Let us take a moment to go over the issue of economic growth, because from listening to some of this debate this afternoon it is very clear to me that members on the opposite side of the House neither know what it looks like and what it means, nor have any clue whatsoever about how to deliver it. So let us have a look at it for a minute. Economic growth is important because it means creating jobs. That is what it means in a real sense. It means more Kiwis being in work. It means having higher incomes; it means lifting the incomes of New Zealand families. That means that they can get ahead under their own steam and are not reliant on handouts from the State, so they are not caught up in the culture of entitlement and of asking what the Government is providing for them. No, we say people should work hard, get ahead, and accept responsibility for their own destiny, and we will back them. That is what economic growth means to us.

Economic growth means getting this country back to having Government surpluses. Why is that important? When we get this economy back to showing Government surpluses, it will mean that we have choices. We will have choices about how to deliver the sorts of public services that New Zealanders deserve. We will have choices about how to deliver the best in education, the best in health—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I have mentioned before that barracking across the benches is unacceptable. Interjections are fine, but they should be interjections about what the member is saying at the time. I ask members to please calm it down.

AMY ADAMS: I was talking about the fact that when we get this economy back to showing surpluses, we will have choices about what we can deliver. That means that we can deliver to the people of New Zealand the sorts of public services that they are entitled to expect—the sorts of education, health, law and order, and other things that we want for all of our citizens. In order to do that, we have to get the economy into surplus.

Under the Budget that Bill English has delivered in 2010, we will now be returning to surpluses; they are predicted for 2016. That is 3 years ahead of the predictions that we had just last year, and considerably better than the decade of deficits that the previous Labour Government left us as its legacy. This Government understands that we have to earn money before we spend it. It is a pretty simple lesson. Most Kiwi families get it and most businesses get it, but Labour never understood that money has to be earned before it is spent. That Government just kept on spending it. As a country, New Zealand had been living beyond its means for far, far too long. We cannot continue to just assume that money will come from a magic ATM in the sky.

We understand that Governments have no money. There is no such thing as Government money. The money that we spend is taxpayers’ money: the hard-earned money of New Zealanders who contribute to this country and its prosperity. We understand that if we do not back those people, those workers, and those businesses—every man, woman, and child who is working hard to get this country ahead—then we will never prosper as a country. That is a fundamental truth that Labour does not get. Spending was the only thing that the previous Labour Government was ever any good at.

National has always been seen as the party that people turn to when they want to have sensible economic management, and that is exactly what New Zealanders wanted in 2008. That was exactly what they were asking for, and that is why they delivered to this John Key - led National Government the strong, overwhelming mandate that they did. We understood that recovery and economic growth were going to come from addressing the imbalances that had been hamstringing our economy for so long—the imbalances that meant that under Labour’s watch, no net new jobs had been created in agriculture or manufacturing since 2002. For the Labour members now to cry crocodile tears, when they had presided over an economy where no net new jobs were created in agriculture and manufacturing—the backbone of our economy—for the last 6 years of their Government, is an absolute tragedy. It is an absolute shame and a farce.

We knew that in order to get growth, we would have to rein in expenditure. A country cannot keep spending more than it earns; we had to get a handle on expenditure. We had to better manage our balance sheets, which showed $217 billion of Government assets. If we do not manage our assets far more prudently, this country will never recover. We had to ensure that there was better value for money. It is not good enough to simply throw money into a health system that saw expenditure double under Labour, yet the amount of elective surgery per capita fell. That is what that previous Government did: it put twice the amount of money into the health system, but outputs fell. Labour thought that if it just kept throwing money into the pit, without any sort of value-for-money assessment, then that had to be good. Well, that might have been fine if we had had money to throw around, but that Government was spending more than it had. That simply was not sustainable. If we are to get growth in this economy, we have to encourage our export sector. We have to get behind our farmers, we have to get behind our manufacturers, and we have to get behind our innovative New Zealanders who are out there working hard. That is what this Government is focused on; that is what Budget 2010 is all about.

We understand that growth is a partnership between the Government and the private sector, because Governments do not create jobs, actually. Governments do not create jobs; businesses create jobs. The Government does not pay taxes; New Zealanders pay taxes. Governments have to support businesses. We have to support Kiwis: we have to help them to invest and to grow, and we have to not make their lives harder and harder. Faced with the situation that was in front of us, we knew that no single solution would magic away our problems. But we know, from the debate in this House, that Labour has spent the last 20 months waiting for a bill to come on to the Order Paper entitled “The Solution to All Our Problems Bill”, because that must have the answers. Those members have not seen it, so they have figured it out that there is no plan. But do members know what that tells me? It tells me that they simply do not understand what economic growth is, and what delivers that growth. They have no idea of how to roll out a strong economy for this country. Every time they say in this House that there is no plan, all that tells me is that they do not get it. They do not have a clue; they would not recognise a growth agenda if it jumped up and bit them. That tells us that if they were in charge of this country right now, we would be continuing the downward spiral that they put us on in their 9 years in office.

There are many elements to our economic plan. In 20 months the sheer volume of what this Government has delivered in order to turn this economy round is staggering. If we just focus on the six main points, we can see that we have the biggest tax reform in 25 years, which is designed to encourage hard work, discourage consumption, and back New Zealanders who want to get ahead. We have one of the biggest infrastructure packages that New Zealand has seen, and we have been starving for infrastructure growth in this country. Ten billion dollars will be spent on roads alone, and $1.5 billion on broadband, with another $300 million on rural broadband. We see better, smarter public services being consistently rolled out by this Government, and there is better value for money in our spending, as well. We see a focus on lifting education standards. We actually say it is not good enough that 20 percent of our kids cannot read and write.

Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:33:00 +1200

It is a great pleasure to take a call in the second reading debate on the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill. As has been mentioned, this bill spent some time at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is ably chaired by my friend and colleague Craig Foss. He did an excellent job of shepherding a very difficult bill through the committee. It was a bill that the committee worked very well on, certainly very cohesively, and with one purpose in mind, and that was to ensure that we got the best legislation we could get in this important area.

In my first reading contribution on this bill I spoke about the importance of trust and confidence in our financial sector. I think that given the years just behind us—not only in New Zealand but also in the world—everyone is very aware of the importance of that trust and confidence, and how easily it can be damaged, and also the damage that can be done when confidence and trust fall. We have seen all sorts of examples, even in more recent times, of what happens when there is no confidence in our very important financial sector. Insurance is an important part of that. When we have been looking at reform of the financial sector, a lot of the focus has been on finance companies and the like, but in this legislation we are focusing on the insurance sector. It covers life, medical, non-life, and, as my friend Mr Garrett talked about, employment protection insurance for people who suddenly find themselves in a less secure employment position than they might have been at the start of the day.

This is a strong regime and an important regime. The committee had to get a balance ensuring that the response was enough to protect New Zealanders who rely on the financial sector and the insurance sector, and ensuring that it was not overly onerous for companies and did not go any further in terms of red tape and bureaucracy than we needed to go. That is where a lot of the committee’s work was focused.

As we have heard, the bill requires the licensing of all applicable insurers. A big part of our work was determining who should fall outside that catchment. We spent a bit of time talking about overseas insurers and to what extent the bill should cover them. The decision was that it should not apply to anyone not carrying out business in New Zealand. The two exemptions I want to briefly touch on in this contribution are the exclusions we recommended for trade associations and other professional associations that offer voluntary insurance benefits as part of their work. I think it is important that we are careful we do not bring into the ambit of a bill like this any organisation that was not intended to be caught. Clearly, the mischief we are trying to deal with in this legislation is those organisations in the insurance sector proper, not those that offer some discretionary membership benefits and are not really in the nature of a pure insurance company as we would think of it. We recommended that some work be done on excluding those associations from the bill.

We also spent time thinking about small insurers and ensuring that we do not apply overly onerous requirements to them, particularly around some of the solvency requirements of the bill and the financial strength ratings. Existing insurers will have the ability to be exempt if their gross annual premium income is over a figure that will be set; we are thinking it will be in the region of $1 million to $1.5 million of gross premiums a year. Existing insurers in that category will be able to be exempt from the bill but, as I said, not all of the conditions of the bill—primarily financial strength ratings, some of the capital adequacy requirements, and some of the solvency requirements. I think that is an important part of the bill. As I said, we do not want to be unduly onerous on small insurers who are in business and are carrying on their work adequately, and who certainly were not expecting this when they set up their business model.

Those are the two exemptions I wanted to touch on in this contribution; I know that other members will address other parts of the bill. I think the committee can be rightly proud of the work it has done. Certainly, it is not an easy area; it is a complex one. Under the careful chairmanship of Craig Foss, I am very happy with where the bill has come to. Thank you.

Estimates Debate - In Committee

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:07:00 +1200

It is a great pleasure to take a call in the estimates debate on Vote Finance. I tell members right now that I will not waste any of my contribution responding to the muck that the member Trevor Mallard continually tries to throw at members on this side of the Chamber. It is clear that when a party like Labour has nothing to offer people, its members resort to mud, muck, and baseless allegations. New Zealand cares about getting this economy growing, getting New Zealand moving, getting New Zealanders into jobs, raising incomes, and making this country a place that New Zealanders want to live in and to be in. That is why I think we can all be very proud of the work that our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are doing.

The initiatives in this year’s Budget—and in Vote Finance, in particular—are central to our economic growth strategy. This Government was elected overwhelmingly by the people of New Zealand to lift the incomes of New Zealanders and to improve the outlook for New Zealanders, and that is what we are doing. Let us be frank about this. The polls are very clear: New Zealanders like what we are doing, and they are paying no attention to that party over there, which is more interested in throwing mud and laying baseless allegations before this House than it is in getting New Zealanders into jobs and creating an economy that is sustainable, solid, and based on the productive sector of the New Zealand economy.

In my previous contribution to this estimates debate, I said that when Labour members stand in this Chamber and talk about a lack of direction, it simply tells us one thing. It simply tells us that they have no idea what an economic growth strategy looks like. They would not recognise one if it came up and bit them. The work that this Government is doing is working. Treasury is telling us that it will create 170,000 extra jobs and extra household income of $7,000 per annum. Those are real, substantial, and meaningful achievements. That is why this country is continuing to endorse the John Key - led Government.

Budget 2010 is focused on economic growth and on rebalancing the economy. A big part of that is addressing the external liabilities that put our economy in great jeopardy. The tax changes that my friend Mr Foss has already talked about are central to addressing the concerning level of external liability that this country currently has.

As well as the tax changes, the other part of that focus is the efforts that this Government is making to control government expenditure. Those efforts are meaningful. The Government is addressing the strong economy that we need, and ensuring that our debt position is controlled—far more so than it would have been under the previous Government, which just wanted to keep borrowing and ignoring the failing of the productive sector. It also means that we are delivering better and smarter public services. We are ensuring that the taxpayers’ money—money that hard-working New Zealanders give us the privilege of spending—is spent on front-line services, not on more bureaucrats, not on more red tape, and not on more bodies than endlessly study and report on issues but do not deal with them, as we saw with the previous Government. We are ensuring that the money is spent on real services for New Zealanders, such as more doctors, more nurses, more midwives, and more police on our streets, because that is what New Zealanders want.

This Budget is about addressing the imbalances between our tradables and our non-tradables sector, and making sure that jobs in this economy are real, that they are sustainable, and that they support the parts of the economy that will see New Zealand climb up the OECD rankings.

This Budget is about productivity. It is about ensuring we have tight fiscal management for the first time in a long time—about 9 years, I suggest; from about 1999 to 2008. We are seeing good fiscal discipline. We are seeing a Government that understands the very simple lesson that every household learns: we have to earn money before we can spend it. That is what the previous Government did: that Government spent first, then earned later. This Government knows we have to earn the money first. It is not rocket science, one would think. Most New Zealanders understand it. Heck, my 10-year-old daughter understands it. We have to earn the money first, then spend it. But not Labour! Oh, no. Labour borrows and borrows.

This Government understands that if we do not have the productive sector working right, we are not earning any money and we cannot deliver the sorts of public services we want for New Zealand. That is what this Budget is about. It is about better balance sheet management, and ensuring that the $217 billion worth of assets that this Government is responsible for are working for the people of New Zealand, who are the owners of those assets. Thank you.

Estimates Debate - In Committee

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:15:00 +1200

I am very happy to take a call in respect of Vote Tourism, as I come from the beautiful electorate of Selwyn where tourism is a substantial part of the economy. Everyone in this Chamber could and should properly recognise that the work this Government is doing with its economic growth agenda to lift the wealth and prosperity of all New Zealanders is fundamental to the success of this country.

Anybody who looks at the issue objectively knows that this Government has been one of the most active, productive, and effective Governments this country has seen. Thank heavens we have John Key and a National-led Government, because this Government is leading economic growth in tourism, farming, and exporting—which are the sectors that will see New Zealand come out of the global recession—and addressing the horrific economic mismanagement of the previous Labour Government over the last 9 years.

The tourism initiatives I see happening every day in Selwyn will lead to growth. Treasury is predicting 170,000 new jobs for the economy as a result of this Government’s economic management. National was elected to deliver greater prosperity to New Zealand, and that is what we are delivering. Do members know what appals me? What appals me is that the Labour Party is so financially incompetent that it cannot see the effect of what we are doing. It cannot see the difference that the policies of this Government is making to jobs and growth in this country. Labour has had its head in the sand for so long that the only way it knows to create wealth is to spend taxpayers’ money—borrow and spend. This Government, on the contrary, understands that real growth comes from the productive sector, and that is why—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to Dr Prasad that interjections should be rare and reasonable.

AMY ADAMS: That is why this Government is putting in place a number of initiatives. That is why we are putting an extra $30 million into the tourism sector, for example. That is why we have streamlined and simplified the Resource Management Act—so that new tourism initiatives can get under way.

We heard today in question time the Hon Dr Nick Smith talk about the fact that those changes to the Resource Management Act have changed a consenting process that was taking upwards of 6 years so that it now takes 4 months. So when some of the tourism ventures in Selwyn want to build new infrastructure, new growth—and there are some fantastic plans for the ski fields in my electorate—they know that the Resource Management Act will not now be the absolute, concrete shoe that it was under the previous Government. We will not see good growth initiatives and good tourism initiatives strangled by the red tape and inefficiencies of the previous Labour Government.

This Government will ensure that sectors like tourism, agriculture, and exporting, which were in recession for 5 years under the previous Labour Government—for 5 years while the world was in boom times—will now grow. They will grow, they will prosper, and they will create real sustainable jobs for New Zealanders. There will be an increase in average household incomes of more than $7,000 a year thanks to the policies of this Government. For Labour members to now cry crocodile tears when over 9 years they did nothing except borrow and spend other people’s money—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Dr Prasad, if you are going to be disruptive, be disruptive from your own seat. Please go to your own seat. [Interruption] Please go to your own seat.

AMY ADAMS: The economic policies of this Government are substantial and effective, and they are making a difference for real New Zealanders. One of the best pieces of news that this Government delivered in recent times was when the Minister of Finance announced that for the first time we have seen growth in the productive sector outstripping growth in the non-productive sector. That is a major milestone. It is exactly the sort of economic growth, economic step change, that we are delivering.

Labour members are so blind that they cannot see that—they cannot see it. For them to now cry crocodile tears is pretty appalling. They managed the economy into the ground during the best period of economic activity the world has seen, and the productive sector continued to fail.

Electricity Industry Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:33:00 +1200

I am happy to take a call this evening on the Electricity Industry Bill, having been part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that had the pleasure of working through the process in respect of this legislation.

The electricity sector is a key part of our country, not only of our economy but also of our household sector. I think it is worth recapping that the reforms in the bill arose from a ministerial review into the performance of this sector. That review came about because there was widespread concern amongst New Zealanders about prices, security of supply, and issues with the governance of the sector. It is also worth noting that the ministerial review was aided by an exceptional technical advisory group. The work that that review panel did laid the foundations for the bill we have before us.

The key findings were that there were price rises, particularly in some sectors, well outside what could be justified. In particular, the margins in the residential power price sector were much higher than could be reasonably expected. The review looked at the question of the adequacy of the new generation capacity. It found that New Zealand had a particular vulnerability to dry years, and consumers were being repeatedly asked to go through public conservation programmes to make up for the failure of the electricity sector to adequately manage that vulnerability. The other key finding was that the Electricity Commission was trying to juggle too many balls and it was not sufficiently focusing on the key aspects of its role.

With that in mind, I say that the Electricity Industry Bill has come before us. I think the select committee process was valuable, and the committee came up with some important improvements to the bill. One improvement I want to touch on relates to the work we did to make sure that the mechanics of the assets swap, in terms of the transfer of Tekapō A and Tekapō B from Meridian Energy to Genesis Power, would work properly and ensure in particular that third-party users of the Waitaki River system would not be detrimentally affected. There was considerable concern about ensuring that moving from dealing with just Meridian to dealing with Meridian and Genesis would leave the Waitaki irrigators in no worse a position. We understand and accept that they have issues remaining to deal with, but they were outside the ambit of this bill. Our concern was to ensure that nothing to do with the asset transfers would put any party in a more difficult position in terms of resolving those matters. I think we have come to a good place there.

We also did a lot of work around some of the technical aspects of governance, including looking at some of the issues like the necessity for by-elections upon the retirements of trustees of consumer trusts and the like, in order to ensure that we have a good balance between consumer protection and unnecessary cost.

One of the other key changes that the committee recommended is increasing the threshold before lines companies are required to undertake corporate separation between their lines company business and the generating/retailing aspects of their business. The bill always had a threshold for that. There was considerable concern from submitters that that threshold was so low that it would defeat the objective of getting lines companies back into the game. We took that on board and we recommended that the threshold be increased. Certainly, it is good to see the Minister take that on board.

In closing my brief contribution tonight, I want to mention some of the comments we have seen in the mainstream media on the reforms. The Press editorial from my own part of the world commented: “Changes made by Labour did little to improve the sector, and, if anything, worsened it.”—and I think we can all agree with that. It continues: “The signs are that the package may well deliver more competition and the prices will be more stable. These reforms should be effective in better meeting the aims of an efficient market.” Interestingly enough, we have Jeanette Fitzsimons blogging: “The Government’s moves to make the power retail market more competitive are good,”. That is strong praise indeed from Ms Fitzsimons. Consumer New Zealand’s chief executive said: “I think the asset swap—both the physical one and the virtual swap—will mean they will no longer be just competing in the regional area they are generating in, but will have to go nationwide.”

I think we will see from the reforms in this package a better-organised sector, a better-governed sector, more competition, and, at the end of the day, a better outcome for the users of electricity, which is what this is all about. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Governor-General Bill

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:11:00 +1200

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Governor-General Bill, and unlike the previous member who has just resumed his seat, Darren Hughes, I do not intend to waste the bulk of my contribution rubbishing the importance of the Governor-General’s position or the necessity for this bill. In fact, it is odd that Mr Hughes spent so much time ridiculing the need for this bill when, as he knows, it was the previous Labour Government that called for the Law Commission to investigate the relevancy and the appropriateness of that piece of the Civil List Act. As we have heard from the Prime Minister, the Law Commission has now reported, and amongst its recommendations is that the position of Governor-General should be governed by a stand-alone piece of legislation, which I think is appropriate and takes the opportunity to modernise and update those provisions.

As Mr Hughes said, the Prime Minister has run through a number of technical provisions. One of the things that I think is worth touching on in the current context that we all find ourselves in is the issue of tidying up the transparency around the administration of a Governor-General’s position. It is not something, I admit, that I was aware of until I looked into this bill, but up until now the office of the Governor-General was paying for many of its official duties through what was loosely termed the Governor-General’s personal allowance. In the environment we find ourselves in, with intense scrutiny of spending of taxpayer funds—and appropriately so, in my view—I think it is important that we carve out from those allowances matters such as the holding of official functions, and international travel that is undertaken at the behest of the Government. It is important that we ensure that that sort of funding is separately appropriated.

In addition to clarifying that spending through the Governor-General’s office, we will also see, as part of the drive towards transparency, under this bill an annual report to this House of the Governor-General’s expenses. As I say, in the environment that we have—in particular the media and public interest in, and the scrutiny of, spending—I think that that is a good thing. It is certainly the direction that this House has been moving in, in general. I know that Governors-General will welcome that, as they have called for and are welcoming the removal of the income tax exemption.

I wanted to comment that it is not just income tax that Governors-General up until now have been potentially exempt from. The legislation provided a power to exempt Governors-General from any local tax, rates, fees, levies, and the like. That harks back to the day when Governors-General were appointed from Britain and were generally British residents, so it was not then appropriate for them to pay taxes. But we have moved on considerably in the 160 years since our first Governor. We have moved on from the days of William Hobson. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 meant that Governors-General were simply the Queen’s, the monarch’s, representative here; they no longer represented the British Government. Since 1967 we have had New Zealand - born Governors-General, which was a step in the right direction. It is certainly one that I think everyone would endorse.

Now it is appropriate that the highest office-holder in the land is subject to income tax and all other taxes and charges that every New Zealander pays and contributes to the running of this country. I support that. I also support—as a matter of wrapping up my contribution—tidying up the rules around the payment of the annuity to a surviving spouse of a deceased Governor-General. It was not appropriate in this modern environment that that should be subject to restrictions such as not being able to remarry or to move overseas. The spouses of Governors-General play an important role. I think they are widely recognised for the work they do. The current spouse is certainly in that position, as others have been. There will be widespread support for ensuring that their annuity is not subject to some sort of anachronistic restriction of not being able to remarry, and the like. I think the bill is timely, and it is worthwhile. I am pleased to be able to commend it to the House.

Taxation (Annual Rates, Trans-Tasman Savings Portability, Kiwisaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:05:00 +1200

It is a pleasure to take a call this afternoon on the second reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates, Trans-Tasman Savings Portability, KiwiSaver, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I was part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that examined the bill. Tax legislation is possibly not the most stimulating of topics that we deal with in this House, and for a wider audience it possibly does not generate the highest levels of interest. But it was quite an interesting process to work through the bill, which enjoys a broad level of support in the House, and I think that is sensible.

There are certainly sensible measures within the bill, such as allowing much easier flow of retirement savings between New Zealand and Australia. That is a welcome step. Many, many New Zealanders who have worked in Australia and been subject to its compulsory retirement savings scheme have come back to New Zealand and been unable to access or transfer those funds, and in the time between their transfer back to New Zealand and their reaching retirement age they have simply lost touch with those funds. Huge sums of money in Australia have not found their way back to their rightful owners. Anything we can do to ensure New Zealanders get the benefit of retirement savings they have made in Australia—and similarly for New Zealanders who go to Australia—is to be encouraged and applauded, and I certainly do that.

I will briefly touch on two other aspects of the bill that I found interesting during its passage through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The first of those tidies up the rules for under-18-year-olds enrolling in KiwiSaver. Some traps in that process had been discovered that we had to work through. We looked at some interesting issues in relation to guardianship and the various situations that under-18-year-olds might find themselves in. The committee spent a bit of time on that, with help from officials, and I am comfortable that the position we have come to is a sensible one.

The last matter I want to touch on briefly in this contribution is the reasonably well overlooked provisions in this legislation relating to binding rulings. Binding rulings are a part of tax law that I am very interested in because I think they are a very, very important part of our tax structure whereby we enable taxpayers to find out in advance what the tax consequences will be, rather than saying: “Have a go, enter in, then we’ll tell you later whether you’ve got it badly wrong.” They are a very valuable part of our tax system and one that I would like to see better utilised. So I applaud anything that clarifies the way in which they work. Although the provisions in the bill seem restrictive on the face of it, they make it clear where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can and cannot issue a binding ruling. To the extent that they will help taxpayers and their advisers better understand that process and know when to use it, I think they are a welcome step, and I certainly encourage taxpayers to take full of advantage of them. As I said, any step we can take to enable people to understand how tax law will affect them at the front end of a transaction is to be welcomed. I commend the bill.

Imprest Supply (First For 2010/11) Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:01:00 +1200

I rise to take a call in this afternoon’s debate on the Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill. It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to this afternoon. “Wide ranging” does not begin to cover the scope of what we have heard.

As a relatively new member in the House, I must say that it took me a little bit of time to get my head round some of the financial processes that we go through, year on year, in this House. It is worth clarifying for the benefit of anyone listening at home who is not familiar with the processes that this part of the financial programme is just about formally signing off spending that has already occurred in the 2009-10 year. That spending happened under Imprest Supply bills, and we now formally sign off on it because it was outside the votes in last year’s Budget. The Finance and Expenditure Committee had the opportunity to look at the supplementary estimates in a little more detail. It was a very interesting experience and it was certainly a help in getting our heads round how the process worked. The major increases this year in the estimates were primarily in the finance portfolio, of about $1.8 billion; revenue, of about $900 million; and social development, of $475 million. Those were the big three.

When we look at where that expenditure has occurred, it is interesting to note that all the big-ticket items are related to the global financial crisis and the uncertainty that it brought about. When we go through the briefings and break down some of those large numbers, we see that the big-ticket items are things like the guarantee and indemnity scheme, which was a reaction to the serious global financial situation that we found ourselves in. They are things like the massive increases in debt-servicing costs or the unexpected jumps in debt impairments and debt write-offs, both in the tax arena and in the social policy area. And, not surprisingly, there was a large cost for increased benefits, as we saw New Zealanders dealing with the fallout of the recession. I think it is entirely appropriate in this debate, albeit it is a wide-ranging one, that when we talk about the need to now sign off on that additional expenditure, we take a moment to look at where our economy has come from and where it is going. We have found ourselves in an incredibly fast-paced and changing environment, certainly since the National-led Government has been in office. That has been the largest contributing factor to the numbers we are looking at today.

I will start by looking at exactly where our economy was and what its health status was. Given that we are having Men’s Health Month, we should also have an economic health snapshot of where we are at. The economy in 2008, even before we went into the global financial crisis, was in a perilous state because of exactly the same sorts of imbalances that this whole House is now acknowledging exist. But let us not kid ourselves that these imbalances came about under the recession. The sorts of imbalances that this country and its economy are really struggling to grapple with existed long before any international crisis. The biggest one of those has been the failure of our productive sector since the turn of the millennium to grow and expand as it should have. Since 2000 we have had a productive sector in decline. That is something I have mentioned in this House on more than one occasion, and it is something I will keep mentioning, because if we do not address it and acknowledge in this House that we have to get our productive sector in a healthy position, then we will never create the sort of economy we need. It has been said here, and I think it was the Minister of Finance who said it, that it is very easy to say these things, very easy to stand up and pay lip service to wanting to build exports, to grow innovation, and to support business. I do not think any members in this House would be brave enough to stand up and admit they do not agree with any of that. But the difference is what actions this House is prepared to take to make that happen. They are cheap words. They are easy words. If someone is not prepared to break the eggs to make the omelette, then that person should not be making those sorts of claims.

The economy that the National Government dealt with when it picked up the reins in 2008 was one where the productive sector had been neglected, abused, and abandoned by its Government. We were seeing the consequences of that. We were seeing a steady decline in exports. We were seeing exporters struggling to stay afloat. We were seeing more and more mum and dad New Zealand businesses shutting down, not taking on staff, not making a profit, and, increasingly, heading overseas to what they perceived as greener pastures. There is no way that we will ever get our economy to a place where it can provide sustainable jobs, good incomes, and a standard of life to which we all aspire, unless we are prepared to be honest with ourselves and say that if we do not create an environment in which business can grow, thrive, and prosper, then it will be a case of the last one out please turn out the lights. This economy is doomed if we cannot get that right.

That is why this Government, when it came into office, had two immediate goals. The first goal was to deal with the recession as best as we could, and to make the impact on New Zealanders as little as it could be. We knew we could not avoid it. It was happening all across the world. But we could make sure that we maintained core entitlements to New Zealanders, which we have done. We could make sure that we delivered on our commitments to New Zealanders, which we have done. And we could make sure that we delivered the sort of platform for economic growth that we had promised New Zealand in the 2008 election campaign, and that New Zealanders had invested in when they voted for this National-led Government.

In the 2009 Budget and then in the most recent Budget, we are starting to see that programme roll out. I often describe this economy as a pretty slow-moving beast to turn round. In the words of the infamous Rachel Hunter: “It’s not going to happen overnight, but it will happen.” But we have to start by putting in place foundations for growth, and they are things like addressing tax and carrying out the biggest single reform of our tax system that we have seen for 25 years. Why are we doing that? Because it is one of the biggest incentives we can give to this economy. It is the biggest way that we can tell New Zealanders to work hard, get ahead, save more, and invest more, and their Government will back them. That is what tax reform is all about. It is not about more money to the Government; it is about incentivising the economy to be more productive and less consumption focused. That is how we will address the shortfall in personal savings, and that is how we will start to give business in this country the message that they can get ahead and that there is a future here. That is when we will see our best and our brightest returning home to base themselves in New Zealand.

I will make the point that when we talk about business, let us not think of it as some big ugly corporate on the stock exchange. The vast bulk of business in this country is small enterprises employing 10 or fewer staff. That is what we talk about when we talk about business. Do not buy into the lie that it is some faceless corporation. Supporting business is supporting the families and the people in our communities who get up every day and work very hard just to pay the bills, and that is what has been lacking. But with the sorts of tax incentives in this Budget and the sort of investment in infrastructure that will lay foundations for growth, we are putting New Zealand on the road to prosperity once more, and we are putting New Zealand into a space that will see economic growth delivered. In this Budget we are looking at growth projections averaging 3 percent for the next 3 years, and that is fantastic news. It will mean 170,000 new jobs, it will mean greater incomes for Kiwi families, and it is the sort of economic growth that will provide the outcomes that all New Zealanders want.

When we look at the infrastructure investment that this country was calling out for under the 9 years of Labour and that we are now delivering, we see that it removes some of those bottlenecks. It will see roading put in place. Roading projects like the Christchurch Southern Motorway, which my electorate has been calling for for 19 years, are now under way. I drove past it yesterday, and I saw the bulldozers rolling. It is a fabulous sight to see. We will see investment in broadband. I can tell members that in my communities in Selwyn it is the issue that my constituents raise with me most often. They cannot get broadband, and without broadband one cannot do business in a modern environment. So we can see that our investment in infrastructure straight away translates into setting conditions for economic growth and prosperity for New Zealand.

That is what this Government is all about, that is what we have been delivering since 8 November 2008, and that is what we will continue to deliver. We know that that is what New Zealanders want. They want economic growth, they want safer communities, they want raised education standards, they want less bureaucracy, and they want a Government that has aspiration, that has hope for them, and that knows that we can aspire to more in this country. We are not tall poppy knockers on this side of the House. We do not knock anyone who puts his or her head above the parapet. We tell people that if they are prepared to work hard, we will back them. This Government will get in behind any New Zealander who wants to get ahead. It is not just hollow words from us. We do not just stand here and make speeches; we get out there and do it. I am very pleased to support this motion.

Budget Debate

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:25:00 +1200

It is a real pleasure to take a call, as one of the earlier speakers said, as we come to the end of this 2010 Budget debate. Since 20 May I have been following this debate with some interest, both within the Chamber and from my office. I have to say, having followed the debate since Budget day, that I am as proud today of the Budget that Bill English delivered on 20 May as I was then. I could even say that I am now prouder of it, because over that time we have all had a chance to get out into our communities, talk to our constituents, listen to our communities, and hear what people are saying about how this Budget will affect them. The message we are getting, loud and clear, is that this Budget is giving people a fair deal, it is giving them a reason to get ahead, and it is giving them reason to hope for the future of this country. That is what this Government came into power to give. That is what we came here to deliver. That is what we are committed to delivering.

We know that it will take some substantial change to do it, but this Budget is a substantial part of where we want to see New Zealand go. We are aspirational for this country. We are ambitious. We want to see New Zealanders have higher incomes, better jobs, a higher standard of living, and the sorts of social services that we all aspire to. The recipe for that is economic growth. Economic growth is what the National-led Government is committed to delivering for this country, and economic growth is what Budget 2010 is all about.

Before I turn to look at some of the detail of the Budget in the debate this evening, I will take a minute to recap the challenges that New Zealand was facing when this National-led Government came into power, because those challenges are still the pressing issues that this Budget is very much addressing. We had a productive sector that had been in decline consistently since 2000. That is a frightening statistic. Since 2000 our productive sector had been steadily declining. As a country, we were continually spending more than we earned. We saw rapid growth in Government spending, yet, scarily, there were fewer front-line outcomes for New Zealanders. Net Crown debt was forecast to peak at around 70 percent of GDP, and the household sector was routinely described as being consumption-focused and debt-driven. Because of that, we were looking at having a balance of payment deficit of over 8 percent of GDP, and our biggest single vulnerability was our external liabilities, forecast to be around $168 billion, or 90 percent of our GDP.

With that sort of external indebtedness, we were facing debt servicing that was strangling the little life that was left in the economy. I do not think it is overstating it to say that without some drastic intervention, we would have been teetering on the precipice of being the sort of economy we now see Greece as being. That is the sort of economy to which world markets will not keep lending. They will not keep throwing money into the pit while such an economy keeps on spending. Until the world markets had some confidence in where our economy was going, they would not have kept on lending to us. If we had not made some pretty important and serious changes, both in last year’s Budget and continuing through until now, we could very easily have found ourselves in the situation that Greece and other European countries are finding themselves in.

This Government needed to protect the entitlements of New Zealanders, it needed to soften the harshest edges of the recession, and while doing that it needed to get New Zealand back on to the path to growth. We needed to reprime that economic pump and to get a handle on Government spending and debt levels while we did that. We needed to address the fact that our best and brightest were continually leaving our shores. That was not acceptable to us. We did not want New Zealand to be a place where one grew up and left to get ahead. New Zealanders want to have their grandchildren and children here in New Zealand, and not have them saying that there was nothing for them here and that they had to go. We wanted New Zealand to be a place where New Zealanders want to live and want to get ahead, and we still do. [Interruption] There is a future for them here, I say to Ms Turei. We did not want a country where we are all made as poor as each other but as long as it was equal, no one cared. We have greater aspirations than that, and we are not ashamed to stand up for them. This Budget was a major step in our plan to get our economy away from debt and consumption and towards saving and investment, where there are aspirations and hope. We wanted to address this not just in the public sector but also in the private sector.

Let us look at some of the things that this Budget addressed in the public sector and at how we are changing that culture of inefficiency, debt-driven overspending, and rising debt levels. What that means to this Government, and what we are seeing in this Budget, are things like putting a lid on new spending. We signalled last year that we were committed to having a new spending cap of $1.1 billion. That was signalled to our core Crown agencies and we are living within that. Last year we saw $2 billion of poor-quality spending being reprioritised towards front-line outcomes for New Zealanders, and this Budget has found another $1.8 billion. That is $3.8 billion of poor-quality spending that Bill English and John Key have now reprioritised into real, front-line services for New Zealand that will get this country growing.

It is about spending more than ever on the health sector. I will repeat that, because I think members opposite fail to accept that. We are spending more money than ever on the health sector. Health is the biggest single area of new spending. If the numbers do not add up for members opposite, they should get a new calculator. We are spending more money than ever in the health sector. That does not fit in very well with the Labour campaign speech, but it is true. I am sorry if that upsets their brochures, but we are spending more money than ever in health. We are also putting another 4 percent into operational grants for schools. I can tell members that a 4 percent increase into the operations grants for schools will make a significant difference. Even though we are in this period of fiscal restraint, having to live with a cap on new spending, an extra 4 percent is going to schools’ operational grants. It is about delivering better, smarter public services, it is about getting more for less, and it is about imposing on the Government books the sort of fiscal discipline and efficiency drivers that businesses have been living with year on year.

Frankly, Government spending was getting fat and lazy, and we came in and said that it was time for the Government sector to live up to the sort of restraint that the private economy has been working with in this country for a long time. We saw endless examples under the last Government of more and more money being spent, and fewer and fewer outcomes. That was not good enough, and that is the sort of poor quality spending that this Budget addresses.

It is about delivering better balance sheet management. There is a phrase we have not heard very often in relation to Government expenditure. But the Government is the largest holder of assets in the country. We are talking about over $217 billion worth of assets. If we are not managing those assets well, how will this economy get ahead? If we cannot manage our ship, if we cannot get our assets performing, how can we expect that of the wider economy? So, this Government is demanding better from its Government-owned assets. We are starting to see a significant improvement now coming through.

What will those sorts of changes and that sort of discipline mean? I will tell members one thing those things mean. I mentioned earlier in my contribution tonight that under Labour, core Crown debt was forecast to peak at around 70 percent of GDP. Well, last year’s Budget announced that that would come down to close to 36 percent of GDP. Now, in this year’s Budget, we see that forecast to be 27 percent of GDP, falling away to 14 percent of GDP. That is the sort of fiscal discipline that will get this country back on track. It will ensure that we are not the next Greece. My estimation is that we will come out of this recession better than our trading partners. We will come out stronger relative to the rest of the world. We are putting New Zealand back on the track to economic growth. That is what this is about. Economic growth means jobs.

Treasury tells us that the 3 percent growth we are forecast to get for the next 3 years means 170,000 new jobs for Kiwis. It means $7,000 per annum more income for Kiwi families. Those are the sorts of outcomes we want to be hearing about. We want to hear about better jobs, better incomes, and better standards of living. That is what economic growth gives. That is what we are here to do. I know that it is a cliché, but it is about growing the pie. We cannot keep cutting it. Sooner or later, we have to see the pie grow. That is what this Budget will do.

In the private sector, it is about getting away from consumption and heading towards investment and saving. The Budget tax reform has been well gone over in this debate. That is the sort of change that will see New Zealanders rewarded for their effort and incentivised to get ahead. We are letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money. We are saying that if they bend their backs and get stuck in, we will let them keep much more of that money; for 73 percent of New Zealanders, 82.5c of every dollar earned stays with them. That is half the tax that those New Zealanders were paying. This Budget from this Government is a significant step to delivering New Zealanders the sort of future that we promised in 2008 and we are delivering on in 2010. I am very pleased to commend it.

General Debate

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:04:54 +1200

This week we will have Budget 2010. This Budget will be yet another major step by this Government to fix the economic damage done by Labour. In 2008 New Zealanders elected the National-led Government, for a couple of very good reasons. They know that National is the best economic manager for this country, and that has been proven time and time again. They know that National members do not stand here talking hollow words and crying crocodile tears about jobs and living standards while presiding over an economy, as Labour did, that consistently went south during the best economic times this country ever had. Mr Burns, it was your party that cost every New Zealand family an average of $5,000 a year because Labour mismanaged the economy. You presided in the Labour Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Members need to remember—although I realise they get pretty worked up in debate—that they cannot refer to members across the House by saying “you” did something, because they are referring to the Speaker. The reason for that is to avoid personalising debate. It is in the Standing Orders, for good reason.

AMY ADAMS: The previous Labour Government put in place the structural problems that even Mr Cunliffe now acknowledges. He stood there and asked what the Government is doing about the structural problems. Mr Cunliffe, they are your problems. I can tell you, Mr Cunliffe—

Mr SPEAKER: I realise the member is very enthusiastic in her speech, but she cannot say that they are the Speaker’s problems. Members get into difficulties when they try to personalise the debate. The rules are the way they are because the debate should not be personalised. Members should be debating the issues.

AMY ADAMS: The structural problems that this economy faced were caused by the last Labour Government; that is what we all know. Even today, the Reserve Bank, in its financial stability report, talks about the fact that, to get this economy back on track, we have to address the underlying imbalances. That is what we have seen this Government not only talking about but doing consistently since 8 November 2008, and Budget 2010—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member on her feet has referred to the Reserve Bank report, which was made public today. I will not seek leave to table it, but I will draw attention to the fact that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. How does the member believe that that has assisted the order of the House? I have twice tried to make sure the House stays in order by interrupting the debate when a member was speaking, which is something I do not like doing. The member has now just interrupted the debate further with a spurious point of order. How does he expect me to view that? I invite the member to think a little about what he is doing. The House has been too disorderly today, and I will not put up with it for much longer.

AMY ADAMS: Budget 2010 will be yet another step whereby New Zealand will see this National-led Government take control of the economy and get this country back on to the path that it deserves to be on. We are aspirational. We are ambitious for New Zealand. We want, and unashamedly so, New Zealand to be the wealthy country that it used to be and that it should be. We want better jobs for New Zealanders that are sustainable. We want higher incomes. The difference is that we know that those things come from a strong, productive economic base.

For the Government to do its part, we have to put in place the conditions that will allow business to thrive. We have to get a handle on the out-of-control Government spending that was all Labour knew how to do—keep spending, keep throwing the money around, ignore the underlying issues, and pretend everything is fine. It was head-in-the-sand politics for 9 years under the previous Labour Government, and now New Zealand is paying the price. This Government will get on top of the economic challenges. We are seeing New Zealand recover far faster than the rest of the world. We are seeing strong GDP growth. We are seeing excellent reductions in the unemployment numbers. That is just the beginning of what we will see under the economic management of this Government. That is why New Zealanders put their faith in us.

Budget 2010 will continue to deliver on our goals of financial restraint, and rolling out the infrastructure that will allow this country to grow. In my own electorate of Selwyn, we are looking forward to the roll-out of extensive broadband into our rural communities, which are heartland New Zealand. We are looking forward to the completion of the Christchurch Southern Motorway, which we have waited for for 20 years. My electorate of Selwyn will now get the road that we have been waiting for for nigh on 20 years. That is the sort of infrastructure spending that this Government is committed to, which will see the New Zealand economy finally live up to its potential so that New Zealanders can have sustainable jobs, good incomes, and the public service we want to give them. What we will not do is continue to spend more than we can afford to spend. We will not keep living beyond our means. While Greece and the UK are dealing with the problem of massive debt, what does Labour want us to do? It wants us to borrow more and spend more. Labour members say that we should ignore the problems and just keep borrowing. They say we do not need to worry about production in the economy. No, no; they say we should just keep borrowing. Every other country in the Western World knows the damage done by having crippling Crown debt. Members should remember that if it was not for this Government, we would have a 70 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:09:00 +1200

I am delighted to have the chance to stand here on Budget day and speak to the Taxation (Budget Measures) Bill. Today Bill English delivered a Budget that will move our economy from the sluggish, underperforming, unbalanced, debt-driven, and consumption-focused economy that the previous Government encouraged and presided over. It sat by with its head in the sand for 9 years while our productive sector went down the toilet. This Budget will move us from that position, where we were consistently living beyond our means, and put us back on the track to becoming an economy focused on growth. That is what this Budget is about. It is about having an economy focused on growth.

Why is growth so important? Well, for the benefit of members in the House who do not seem to grasp it, I say that growth is important because through growth we will see jobs. Growth will create real jobs in this country. Members should not tell me that there is nothing in this Budget about jobs. Growth is what will gives us jobs, and this whole Budget is about delivering growth to the New Zealand economy. It will give us not only jobs—and not just jobs in the public sector, but real jobs in the productive economy—but better incomes and a higher standard of living. That is what we in the National-led Government want for this country, and that is what this Budget is moving us towards achieving.

Let us look at some of the projections that we have heard today. They are stunning—they are stunning. We have 3 percent projected growth every year for the next 4 years. That is a staggering turn-round for this economy, and it is a mark of the success of John Key and this National-led Government. Growth of 3 percent every year for the next 4 years will mean 170,000 new jobs—170,000 new jobs. That is what Treasury is telling us. That is Treasury’s conservative estimate of what that sort of growth means to this economy. Not only that, it means an average of $7,000 a year of extra income for New Zealand families. That is what I came into Parliament to help deliver, and I am incredibly proud to be part of a Government that has delivered a Budget like the one we have seen today, which will give that sort of growth, that number of new jobs, and that level of lift in income to all New Zealand families.

That growth comes about from a couple of very important aspects of this Budget. It comes about through controlling our national debt. Debt is a massive issue, as Greece and the UK know. It is their No. 1 issue. Let us just remember that, without the changes that this Government made in last year’s Budget and in this Budget, by 2020 we would have been looking at net Crown debt of 60 percent of GDP. Now it is projected at that stage to be 20 percent. From 60 percent under Labour’s policies to 20 percent under National’s policies—that is the sort of control that will make a difference in this country.

That growth comes from supporting business. All we have heard today, particularly from the Green Party, is how those members would shut down and kill the productive sector. They do not like farming, they do not like the productive sector; all they want to do is to shut it down. We are about supporting our industry and supporting growth, because that is where the growth will come from. Importantly, in respect of this bill, it is about getting the incentives right. It is about ensuring that, through our tax system, we say to New Zealanders that we will get behind them if they are going out there to work hard and get ahead. We will not be getting behind the consumptive, debt-driven economy; we will support Kiwis who are trying to work hard and get ahead.

Labour spent most of the afternoon trying to tell us that this Budget is about favouring the rich—talk about last resort of the desperate! Let us look at what is really happening. Two-thirds of all the tax cuts delivered in today’s Budget will go to reducing the bottom two income tax brackets. Two-thirds of everything will go to the bottom two income tax brackets. After the passage of this bill, 73 percent of New Zealanders will face a top tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent. Nearly three-quarters of all New Zealanders will face a tax rate of 17.5 percent or less. Labour is trying to tell us that it is about a few rich pricks at the top; well, it is not. This is about fairness. It is about equity. The only reason that Labour is so angry is that this Budget has left it with nowhere to go. National is delivering to all New Zealanders. We are delivering to low and middle income New Zealanders, and Labour knows it. Labour knows it, the public knows it, and the commentators know it.

Let us took at what the commentators say. Bernard Hickey today reported that “Labour cannot accuse the Government of delivering a budget for the rich because rich property investors and foreign investors will be hit most by this Budget.” He is right. Tracy Watkins commented: “If the holy grail of budgets is that they under promise and over deliver, Finance Minister Bill English can score Budget 2010 as a win. … everyone will be better off.” I encourage anyone listening to this debate not to buy into the histrionics and crocodile tears from across the House, because those who know economics know that this Budget today is delivering a fairer, more equitable tax system and a stronger, growing economy for all New Zealanders, and I am very proud to commend it.

Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill — First Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 04 May 2010 08:11:00 +1200

I am very pleased to have a chance to take a call in the first reading of this very important legislation, the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. I pick up on some of what the Acting Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, discussed in his first reading speech, specifically around the fact that this, as electoral legislation, is the sort of legislation that needs, in my view and in the Minister’s view, to proceed on the basis of a broad consensus. I talked a little bit about this in the debate around the MMP referendum. When we as a Parliament look at matters to do with the way we elect this very House, we are dealing with matters that are of the most serious constitutional significance. Although these bills can be passed on the strength of numbers, I think it is incumbent on us to make sure we tread carefully down this road and try to build cross-party consensus, which is likely to make the laws we pass not only respected but also enduring.

If there is any lesson that we can all learn from the Electoral Finance Act that was passed before the previous election, it is that—that these are serious issues; they are not the sorts of issues on which we want to exploit a position of power, and we need to go back to some sort of broad consensus as far as we possibly can. Certainly, that has been the Government’s approach to introducing this bill today. The point to remember here is that very soon after coming into Government following the 2008 election, National repealed the Electoral Finance Act. From memory, I think that that repeal was broadly supported in this House. I remember the Labour Opposition agreeing that we needed to re-look at that Act, and I think that it was wise of those members to concede their mistake on that point. Since that time, we have reverted to electoral law as this country had known it for the many, many years in building up to the passing of that Act. The discussion document and the issues paper that went out for public consultation, which this bill is the result of, started from electoral law before the Electoral Finance Act, and we said: “Let us look to make changes to that only where there is a broad consensus of support for it.” When we are looking through the provisions of the bill in front of the House tonight, it is important to look at it in that context—that of starting from a stable position of electoral law that has served this country very well for a long period of time, and of saying that there are issues we need to look at but let us make changes only when we feel there is a broad consensus of support for them.

I will start off on the smallest of the issues dealt with by the bill, which is the one the Acting Minister finished on; that is, the advance voting provision. I was lucky enough to be involved in the Justice and Electoral Committee when it had its inquiry into the previous election and considered this issue. It is an interesting one, and perhaps one that the wider public has not taken on board as yet. The changes in this bill will enable a greater level of participation in our general elections, and I think that is something we all strive for. Our elections work best when there is a high level of engagement. If the matter is as simple as allowing voters to vote on a different day to election day, without having to go through a complex process of proving their entitlement and filling out declarations, then that is a simple enough thing that we in this House can and should do to encourage participation. That is a simple enough change to make and it is an important one to do, and I am certainly very pleased to support that.

The biggest part of the bill relates to the running of campaigns, campaign financing, the question of who can advertise, the matter of how much can be spent, the time we measure from, and those sorts of issues. Again, when we start the debate on these things, from my perspective the issues we have to look at are the sorts of issues that were brought sharply into focus during the 2008 election campaign. I think the biggest difficulty we all struggled with through that campaign was the lack of certainty and the lack of credibility of the very rules. There was a constant process of going to the Electoral Commission and to lawyers to try to find out what could be done, who could do what, what counted, and what did not. It got to the point when even if the Electoral Commission would tell us: “Look, candidate X has breached the rules.”, it would also say “We can’t really do anything about it, because the rules are so unclear that no one really knows what’s happening.” We have to take from that the importance of being very, very clear, of having very certain rules, and of having a good workability between the rules we operate under as MPs—when we spend money in our capacity as members of Parliament—and the money we spend and the regulations we are under when we are campaigning. The waste of resources during that 2008 election campaign was a source of ongoing frustration to me, because the time and effort that should have been spent being out talking to the public was spent in trying to get our heads around exactly what those rules all meant.

The previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, spoke at some length about the regulated period, and I agree with her that that is an important issue. I go back to the opening comment I made, which was that the 3-month regulated period is the period we had in this country for a long time leading up to the Electoral Finance Act. That is what we have gone back to as a starting point for these changes. On the issue of retrospectivity, which Ms Dalziel spoke about, I agree that that is a serious concern. By way of personal example, I mention to this House that I was selected as a candidate in May of 2008, yet all my expenditure from 1 January 2008—a full 5 months before I was even chosen to be a candidate—was regulated. That is a nonsense. How on earth can candidates be responsible for expenditure that they might have spent in that period that may have served to encourage the public to vote for them? That was the sort of crazy system we had. We have reverted back to a 3-month period, or to a period that is defined by the calling of the election, to ensure that everybody knows once we are into the regulated period. I think that that is really key.

Tied in with that—and it is important to tie it in—is looking at the campaign expenditure limits for candidates. Under new section 205B, substituted in clause 8, we see that those expenditure limits, which have been set at $20,000 inclusive of GST since God played fullback for the Apostles, as they say, have now been changed to reflect a CPI adjustment. It goes back only as far as 2008, and the adjustment in the legislation, as printed, is not a big one. The important aspect of that is in new section 266A, inserted by clause 26, which this bill seeks to impose. It is the provision for annual Orders in Council to update those CPI linkages. So that is a beginning. It does not mean a big step forward in the campaign expenditure limits initially, but it finally puts in place some sort of mechanism to make sure that those limits keep pace with inflation over time. I think that that is important.

In this bill we see addressed some important apportionment issues, as the Minister discussed, to make sure that there is clarity about how and where campaign expenditure is apportioned. We have kept from the current electoral finance regime the disclosure of donations and the regime around that. Added to it is the new requirement for political parties to disclose not only donations over a certain limit but also income they have received in bands below that limit. There will be a more complete picture of the funding of our political parties, and I think that that increase in transparency and the clearing up of that can be only a good thing. I am sure that as this bill goes through the select committee, we will see some interesting discussion on some of the issues within it.

I will end where I began, which is simply to say that I think it is dangerous to charge ahead unless we can find a broad consensus for some of these issues. That is why reverting back to the stable electoral law that we have worked under for so long is a good starting point. I look forward to a good, enlightened, and educated debate on these matters in the select committee, because they are important. I am looking forward to the process and I commend the bill to the House.

Electoral Referendum Bill - First Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:18:00 +1200

It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to take a call in this first reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I will take just a moment at the outset of my contribution to run through the history behind where we find ourselves with our current electoral system. No matter in our democracy can be more important than our electoral system, and I think that is fairly well accepted by all. Our current system is MMP. I am certainly old enough to remember the previous system, although it is amazing—

Hon Simon Power: Surely not!

AMY ADAMS: I know it is hard to believe, but in fact I am. It is amazing how many people I and other members speak to who have absolutely no understanding, knowledge, or even awareness of our previous electoral system, first past the post. MMP, of course, first came about through the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. That royal commission led to the first indicative referendum in September 1992. At that time New Zealand voted for a change to its electoral system. The significant referendum was held along with the 1993 general election, and in 1996 we had our first MMP election. As the Minister of Justice has already noted in his contribution, since that time five Governments have been elected under our MMP system.

It is worth mentioning that when MMP was first adopted, by a 54:46 split of the population, there was a common perception among many New Zealanders—not those in the beltway—that there would be a second referendum and that they would have another chance to express their view, having had the opportunity to kick the tyres for a while. They were not right in that perception. That was never what the law said, but it was certainly a commonly held view on the streets of New Zealand. The reality, of course, is that that opportunity would only ever happen if this House had voted to make it so. Instead we had a review in 2001. In 2001 this House undertook a comprehensive review of MMP, and I acknowledge Peter Dunne, who was the deputy chair of the committee. The committee members were instructed by this House to work towards unanimous decisions, or at least towards decisions that came as close to unanimity as they could. Although the committee members agreed on a number of matters, one thing that they could not agree on was whether there should be a second referendum on MMP. At that time public opinion suggested that the majority of people who did not support having a referendum were of that view because they felt, in 2001, that we had not had enough time. We were not ready at that time to assess where MMP was at and whether it was the appropriate system. It is certainly the view of the National Party, and it was part of our election promise to New Zealand, that it was time for New Zealand to have a referendum on MMP. I am very proud to be part of a Government that will give New Zealand a chance to have that say.

As we have already heard in the contributions this afternoon, this bill is not about which system we should have in this country. It is not a bill where we argue which is the better system. I think it is important to make the point clear for anyone listening to this debate that this bill is simply about getting the process right so that we can ask New Zealanders which system we should have. That is important, because even though Parliament is ultimately sovereign and can make decisions as it thinks fit, it is my view that some issues are simply too important and too fundamental for this House to exercise its power on unless we have a very clear and specific mandate from New Zealanders. I think that there can be no better example of that than our electoral system.

In this bill there is a process by which the people of New Zealand will be given the opportunity to say whether they want to keep the system we have. That is the first question in the referenda ballot, and it is the most important question. If they vote to keep the system we have now, then the remaining issues relating to types of system, second referendums, and the like become null and void. As Ms Dalziel has pointed out, a vote to keep MMP will trigger a review of the MMP system; we have one system of MMP, but it can certainly be adjusted. However, if there is a vote for change, then the second question in this referendum will become all-important. That is the question where New Zealanders can indicate their preference with regard to an alternative system. So it is very important legislation not because of what is in it but because it sets up a process by which New Zealanders can make that very important decision.

I end by commenting on the timing. I know that there has been discussion about the fact that this could potentially be a drawn-out process if there is a vote for change, a further referendum, and then a further period for the election. I comment on one thing in closing. When we had those referendums in 1992 and 1993, the first time around—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Referenda.

AMY ADAMS: —referenda; I thank Mr Mallard. The 1992 referenda, which was not held with a general election, attracted only just over a 50 percent turnout. The 1993 referenda—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no—referendum.

AMY ADAMS: —referendum, which was held with a general election, attracted well over 80 percent. As Ms Dalziel commented, these are important issues that we need New Zealand to engage with. This is important and New Zealanders must engage. It must be undertaken with a good degree of understanding. That is why having it at the time of a general election is important to make sure that we really engage New Zealand in this very important process. Thank you.

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill - Third Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:40:00 +1300

We come to the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and it is my final opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill because, unlike members opposite, I reflect the concern that has come through my office every day since I have become an MP about the way in which Environment Canterbury is operating. Despite the rhetoric and despite the scaremongering, this concern is coming not just from one side of the debate; it is coming from people who deal with Environment Canterbury in many ways and who express constant frustration about delay and excessive cost, and about being absolutely powerless in dealing with an organisation that has got into a mind-set of thinking that it does not have to listen to its people.

In the first reading debate I started talking about the importance of Canterbury as a region. I am quite happy to stand here as one of the Canterbury MPs and say that Canterbury is one of the most important regions in this country. It has a spectacular environment and it is one of the most important regions economically. Water is crucial in Canterbury. There is no bigger issue, I think we can safely say—certainly facing the people of Selwyn—than the proper management of our water. Every single person I have come across in this debate—and I ask members opposite who disagree to let me know—would agree that water has not been managed well in Canterbury. If anyone has a different view I ask that person to let me know. I have not heard anyone who is prepared to stand in this House to say that water has been well run in Canterbury—[Interruption] Mr Jones thinks that it has been. He thinks that everything is fine in Canterbury.

Frankly, anyone in this House who is not prepared to back this bill is saying that everything is fine with Environment Canterbury, that we should not do anything—let it keep going as it is, let us just bumble along with our heads in the sand for another 10 years, it will all be OK mate, and it will all come out in the wash. It will not. I can tell members that I have lost faith in Environment Canterbury’s ability to fix this crucial, crucial issue. I have lost any confidence that it can turn this round. I am not saying that members of Environment Canterbury are not good people—they absolutely are. I am not saying that they have not done some good work—they have. But I am saying that I do not believe that Environment Canterbury can deal with the problem of water in Canterbury. The Government needs to step in. The Government, in my view, has an obligation to step in when the job is not being done properly.

Regional councils operate under legislation from this House. We have the authority as a Parliament to step in if that job is not being carried out. It has not been done properly and there is a need for urgent action. Let us be quite clear about this: those problems have been around for a long, long time. Trevor Mallard was quite honest in saying that his Government knew that there was a problem. He wanted to see action on Environment Canterbury, but the Labour Government did not act because there was an election coming up.

At the very first briefing Minister Smith received as the new, incoming Minister for the Environment he was told about the pressing issues in Environment Canterbury, and this Government is going to deal with them. It is not an easy decision to make, it is a courageous decision to make, but it has to be done. We recognise our obligations to get this right; water is simply too important for us to bumble along and pretend nothing is wrong. There is a problem, it needs urgent action, and we have to put in place commissioners to get this right so that we can return to normal operations in our regional councils. They will not do it on their own; they have shown that over a long period of time. This bill is necessary and I am very pleased to see it happening. I commend it to the House.

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:22:00 +1300

I am happy to take a call on the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I start this brief call by bringing us back to a little sense of history. The previous speaker, David Parker, spoke repeatedly about this bill’s being passed under urgency and the like. On 2 May 2000 the Labour Government kicked out the Rodney District Council’s elected councillors with a bill that went through all stages under urgency with no select committee deliberation, so it is a bit rich for that party to sit there now and cry crocodile tears about using urgency to pass a bill to take out a council that is not performing and replace it with a group of commissioners until the council is back on track. It is a bit rich. I remind those listening to this debate that those Labour members were more than happy to use urgency when it suited them to achieve the same end. The difference is that National members did not play politics.

Colin King: We support it.

AMY ADAMS: We supported them on that. The Labour Party and the Green Party are now far more interested in playing politics with Canterbury’s water than accepting what all the stakeholders are telling them, which is that Environment Canterbury does not have the capabilities to do what it needs to do. It does not have the capabilities.

This debate is about getting the regional council of Canterbury right in order to manage our economic development and our environmental management. I quite happily stand here and say that we have not done either of those things well in Canterbury. We have failed to make the most of our economic growth potential, and we have failed to do the right thing by our environment. I would be the first one to say that the path we have been on with water take and water management has not served our environment well in Canterbury. We can do an awful lot better.

I touch on the moratoria aspect of this bill, which will allow the commissioners to come in and put a hold on new water applications while this issue is sorted. So although members on the other side of the House play up the issues about making more water available—and if that happens, I will welcome it—I say that the bigger part is ensuring that that is done only in a way that better protects our water management. That has not happened in Canterbury for a long time. It needs to happen. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Environmental Defence Society, and the Water Rights Trust are all telling us that that needs to happen.

This is not coming just from one side of the debate. Anyone who is actually listening to stakeholders knows that everyone is telling us this. I have had a constant stream of people through my office telling me of issues with Environment Canterbury. They are not all farmers; they are not all irrigators. A number of them have nothing to do with those fields. But they have one thing in common, which is frustration with a regional council that has become disconnected from its obligations to Canterbury and that has failed us environmentally and in economic growth.

This bill is an important step to getting that council back on track, so that we can return to a proper, functioning regional council. I look forward to that happening. It will not happen without this bill, and that is why I am very pleased to support it.