Hon Paula Bennett MP - Speech

Social well-being in the Queen City

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:29:00 +1200

If I’m going to stand up here and talk about how wonderful I believe Auckland to be, you’ll have a hard time getting me to stop. West Auckland’s my stomping ground as you know, and I’m staunchly proud of my Westies.

So if I’m going to focus on the topic of how to build a ‘World Class Auckland’ I’d better stick to something more closely related to my portfolio areas.

I want to focus on the social well-being of Auckland.

First, let’s cut through the jargon and talk about what "social wellbeing" actually means.

One of the best ways I’ve heard it described is "the things people value in their life that contribute to them reaching their potential. It’s a shorthand way of referring to the conditions in society – health, education, productive work and so on – that allow people to flourish."

When you think a bit about that definition, you start to understand just how critical social wellbeing is to the success of a city.

If you have poor social outcomes, you can hold back the potential of not just individuals or even their families – but whole communities. If you’re not getting people to reach their potential, then by default, you’re not getting a CITY to reach its potential either.

What the Government is proposing focuses on getting Auckland to reach its potential as a world class city.

Now as an Auckland-based MP I’m a convert to the cause. I’m biased. I live here because I love it. But I believe what’s proposed will propel Auckland further along that ‘World Class’ road.

It’s about having a vision for Auckland and working doggedly toward that. So what is that vision?

- Boosting Auckland as the economic turbine the country;

- Attracting people from all corners of the globe – and getting them to stay here;

- Housing vibrant and diverse communities

- Being a hub for creativity

- Making sure it’s a place where people feel welcome and safe

Just how we achieve this is what the Government’s working on. We’ve proposed some changes, which will be talked through by my colleagues.

Those changes canvass a number of areas – economic, planning, transport and of course – social outcomes.

Those social outcomes are vitally important. What we do in the social area, I believe, will make a major contribution to the success of Auckland as an international city.

It will touch on the life of not only those already resident in Auckland, but those thinking of moving there or those just passing through. And in turn, what others do in areas such as transport, economic development and land use will also impact on social outcomes and how people work and play here.

One of things I believe is also critical to any discussion on Auckland’s future is to make sure decision-making continues to support social issues.

The Government’s proposal for Auckland involves having one Council, which we believe will scrap some of the duplication that happens at the moment. We want to get the system right so there’s effective, efficient and tidy decision-making for Auckland.

So underneath that overarching body of a single Council to set the direction for the Queen City, we want 20 to 30 Local Boards which will play a key role in their communities.

Unlike the previous Government, we’re not interested in telling people how to live their lives. We back people to know what’s best for them.

Likewise, we believe Local Boards will know what’s best for the people living in their own communities.

This is a diverse city – it’s one of the things that makes Auckland so great. Our neighbourhoods are different from one suburb to the next. A "one size fits all" approach to Local Boards simply won’t fly. We need to make sure the communities within those Boards can address their own unique local issues.

In setting up these boards, we need to make sure there’s effective community representation – so local views are represented in broader decision making at Council level.

You’re going to see that desire for stronger community representation coming through in other central government decisions. For example, I recently announced a Community Response Fund to help critical social service groups help combat significant demand increases or financial hardship due to the recession. We’re going to have Regional Panels advise on those funding decisions, because we know ultimately that only local communities will have a true picture of what’s needed for their own residents.

Both council and central government have critical roles and responsibilities to deliver on those social outcomes for the people of Auckland.

Both contribute to the $12 billion dollars that’s spent on social outcomes in Auckland every year. I’m going to repeat that number, because it’s a mind boggling amount. $12 billion dollars.

If nothing else, it underscores just how vital social issues are to the people of Auckland. I’m sure you’ll agree, we want to make sure we get bang for our buck. All 12 billion of them.

So how to do that exactly?

Cabinet has agreed to set up an Auckland Social Policy Forum. The idea is to have central and local government working together to make sure the work done in the region to support social wellbeing moves in the same direction.

The Forum members will include the Mayor of Auckland, myself as the Minister for Social Development and that key representation from Local Boards.

The Forum will have its work cut out for it – here’s a taste:

- to work out what the region’s social priorities are

- consider and agree on joint venture plans and projects

- identify where there’s a double-up in activity, find the gaps and highlight what could work to achieve positive social outcomes

I believe the Forum will provide a very real way for communities, Council and central government to identify important social issues for Auckland and figure out the way to best respond to them.

We all have a responsibility when it comes to ensuring the people of Auckland are flourishing. And that’s across the board – again it involves communities, Council and central government. But it stands to reason the best outcomes can only be achieved by aligning the work instead of working in isolation from one another. We’re all in the waka together - let’s start paddling in the same direction.

The vision for Auckland is dependant on so many different factors – and you’ll have a better sense of that after this morning’s session. The social wellbeing of this city is one of those critical factors.

The groundwork laid by setting up Local Boards and the Auckland Social Policy Forum will ensure everyone can and does, play their part in making Auckland a world class city.

Speech at the NZCA Annual Conference in Christchurch

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:45:50 +1200

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I am pleased to be able to talk to you about the specifics of National’s policy on Early Childhood Education, which was announced this morning.

Our policy backs parents. Our policy recognises that parents, by and large, will make the right decisions for their children.

We believe a child should grow up in a family environment with love, understanding and happiness. And that parents – not the State - have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children.

National believes early childhood care and education should back parents – not be a substitute for parents who do not have the means, time or where withal for their children.

20 Hours ECE

National will keep the 20 hours scheme for three and four year-olds, but we will be honest about the fact that for many parents the fee-controls and subsidies have not resulted in a ‘free’ service.

As you know, National has been quite critical of the 20 hours “free” policy. We have argued, right from day one, that this policy wouldn’t result in free childcare for many many parents. And the truth is that it hasn’t lived up to its catchy label.

We stand by that criticism. That’s why we’re dropping the word free. Our policy will be “20 hours ECE”.

Let me also be upfront and say that National has worked hard to find alternative mechanisms for delivering the cheaper childcare that the 20 hours scheme has given parents. We’ve talked to experts in the sector, centre operators, teachers and thousands of parents about how to do things better.

The feedback has been fairly consistent. All of these groups have argued that families are currently struggling and have come to rely on the subsidy offered under 20 hours and that centres have adjusted all their funding systems accordingly. There’s been considerable upheaval already and there is no major appetite for extensive new changes.

National’s goal is to deliver cheaper childcare to parents, while maintaining quality.

So National will drop the word free from “20 hours ECE”. But in doing this we will keep all the existing subsidies and fee controls. Let me repeat that, because I think it’s pretty important. We won’t cut the subsidy and we won’t drop the fee controls.

We will also introduce more flexibility for parents. We will do this in a number of ways.

1. National will remove the 6 hours a day limit.

Currently parents can only use their 20 hours a week entitlement for a maximum of 6 hours a day. This arbitrary limit is simply unfair. It ignores the reality of the lives of many working parents, it limits parents’ choices and it undermines their decision-making abilities.

National respects the choices of parents. So, under National, if a parent wishes to use their 20 hours for eight or ten hours a day then we will let them make that choice. We don’t think for example, that they should be financially disadvantaged because they work full-time two days a week and look after their children for the rest.

2. National will include Play Centre and Köhanga Reo in 20 hours ECE.

Right now children in parent-led services such as Play Centre and Kohanga Reo miss out on 20 hours ECE. This is not right and is not fair.

For some in remote rural areas there are no other ECE services available. Others choose Kohanga or Play Centre because they like the whänau involvement.

National recognises that parent and whänau-led services are a quality Early Childhood Education option. We trust parents to make the best decision for their children. So we will back parents and families choices by including Kohanga and Play Centre in the 20 hours policy, for those services that voluntarily opt in.

3. National will provide 20 hours ECE to five year olds

Not all 5 year olds are ready to start school on the day they turn five. For some that’s because it is the end of the year and they would prefer to wait for a new year. For others, they may just prefer a little more time at pre-school.

National recognises this and that’s why we will provide 20 hours ECE to five year olds.

4. Investigate more frequent payment periods

Currently 20 hours funding is paid out 3 times a year and some services struggle with cash flow. We have heard of some smaller and community-run centres that are having particular difficulty.

National will investigate providing funding at more frequent intervals.

We don’t think 20 Hours ECE is the only issue in early childhood education. I’d like to touch on a few other issues today.

Adult/child ratios for under 2 year olds

Currently, for every five children under the age of two, an ECE centre must provide one adult to care for those children. By 2012 all teacher-led services will be required to have 100% qualified teachers fulfilling that carer role.

National believes that the current ratio of 1:5 is too high. We do not think one person will always be enough to ensure that all five babies can be guaranteed the high level of attention they may need. We will, over time, phase in a reduced staff to child ratio of 1:4.

I must say that over the years of visiting services that look after under 2 year olds I am yet to see a service that works at 1:5 - so we do not believe that the change in ratio will have much effect on the sector.

National will also change the requirement that by 2012 centres must provide 100% teacher-led care for under two year olds.

As it stands, this requirement sends the message that only qualified registered teachers have the ability to look after children as young as six or 18 months.

Whilst acknowledging the knowledge and experience of teachers, National believes that some of those looking after our babies do not need a teaching qualification.

There are other skills and qualities that are just as important for somebody taking care of very young children. These include experience and a natural rapport with children. Providing these adults meet certain minimum standards we believe they should be able to care for under twos.

So National will replace the 100% teacher-led requirement for under twos with a 50% teacher-led requirement.

Teacher Shortages

Another critical issue affecting the sector is that of teacher shortages.

The shortages are evident across all of New Zealand and although in some areas there are small improvements they are not improving fast enough.

National recognises that there is no quick fix, but we believe there are some commonsense solutions.

Currently United Kingdom or Australian qualified early childhood teachers find it very difficult to have their qualifications recognised in New Zealand. There is also a discrepancy in the length of time that primary teachers need to retrain to become ECE qualified.

It just doesn’t make sense that we make it difficult for these professionals to teach under fives in New Zealand. If they already know how to teach and how those little brains are wired then the only thing missing is learning Te Whäriki and in some cases NZ culture.

National will investigate developing an intensive 40 hours a week, 6 week course for bringing recognised overseas trained early childhood and primary up to NZ-qualified early childhood education teaching standard.

We will also work to better recognise Montessori and Steiner qualified teachers.

And we will work to develop a module that that recognises and builds on play centre qualifications, to encourage those parents to go on and get fully qualified.

Reducing regulations

There is a lot of burdensome bureaucracy and regulation in the Early Childhood Education Sector.

It is time for commonsense to prevail and for there to be recognition that parents know what is best for their children.

National will over time remove needless regulations. This will include removing the need for more than one licence if there are more than 50 children in a centre. It will include investigation of the level of regulation around limited-attendance centres. It will also include identifying any other regulations that just lead to increased paperwork and costs for services. Unnecessary rules and bureaucracy will stop under National.

Participation

Finally, National is concerned that there are small but very significant number of children that do not participate in any form of early childhood care and education.

The reasons for this are complex.

In some cases it’s because parents don’t want their child in early childhood education. In other cases, it is because there are long waiting lists and no places available. For others it is because they do not have the type of service they want available locally, for example Pacific people often want to attend a Pacific centre.

All of these reasons aside, the fact is that many parents don’t involve their children in early childhood care and education because they are unwilling or unable to access it. Their reasons for non-involvement can include an undervaluing of education, ignorance about their children’s entitlements, or because of health, social or criminal problems.

Fixing those problems is not going to happen solely through our early childhood care and education policy – it will take a combined approach.

National will work in partnership with community groups, private centres, home-based providers and local government to develop local solutions that best meet the early childhood needs of the local community.

We recognise that simply building a centre and hoping that they come will not work. National will continue to support programmes from the NGO sector that work. Locals know what works locally.

I could talk about early childhood policy for hours but time is up – if we don’t get it right for this age group then we are simply setting them on an up hill battle for life. Thank you all for the work that you do for our young people.

Early Childhood Council Policy Forum. Duxton Hotel Wellington.

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:52:00 +1200

“What remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education.”

How far we have come over the last 15 years. How responsive the sector has been to the pressure and changes we have had in society. The mixture of private, community, state, home-based, köhanga reo and playcentre contributes to a vibrant and very diverse sector. National supports choice and acknowledges that this is not a “one size fits all” arrangement for our children. Needs can be different depending on the age of the child, the ethnicity, the religious beliefs, the area that they live in and the working and social setting that their parents and/or caregivers are in. These all play a major part in what sort of early childhood care and education arrangements will suit which children.

May I please just clarify a couple of things to begin with. Throughout this speech I shall refer to parents, I mean anyone who is the main carer of the child and only refer to them as parents for ease of flow through this speech. I shall also jump around between referring to early childhood education and early childhood care – let me be quite clear that I mean both. We simply cannot have one without the other. I acknowledge the push towards more formal education for our under fives and respect the training and qualification gains for our teachers that have been made in the sector throughout the past 12 years. I believe that there is a real commitment within the sector to have formally qualified teachers, helped along of course by the incentivised funding bands, and National will continue to commit to the training of teachers in the sector. But we have dropped the word care and it seems this has been deliberate by the Labour government. In fact early last year during the ongoing debate that I had with then Minister Steve Maharey over 20 hours free, he corrected me publicly at least 3 times for using the word care. It doesn’t mean it is not there – I see it every week as I visit centres around the country – the care of our children is evident when I speak to the teachers and witness first hand how they interact with the children. But as we push further and further toward a more formalised education system for our under fives, lets take stock and be very careful that we do not see it as the answer to all of our problems.

That children perform better at school if they have been in some form of early childhood education is actually a pretty sweeping statement. For those children that are most at risk of under performing later in life or during their formal school years I would say the answer is a definitive yes. That most children will benefit from some form of quality early childhood education is also a given, but lets be careful not to forget the vital ingredient when it comes to our under fives.

Parental engagement, parental choice, parents having the skills and abilities and the time to engage and interact with their under fives is in my mind the most important thing we can do for our children. Everything else we do, through both blatant intervention and through more subtle (but often more dangerous) social changes should simply be to back up the role of the parent. I am a fan of research and devour everything I can on the early childhood sector – as with most research there is conflicting data and lets be honest in this day and age we can find a piece of research to swing our argument in just about any direction we want to. But there is one that I challenge you that would be hard to dispute. And that is that parental engagement and involvement is the most important factor when it comes to the well being of our under fives. National supports the role of parents, we support diversity in the sector, we do not believe the state only knows best and we will have policies across the board that reflect this.

Right – back to the question “what remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education?” This question of course will never be answered. Society’s needs of the sector will continue to evolve and our challenge will be to continue to change with them, something will always remain to be done. I have marvelled at the speed that the sector responded over recent years, our challenge is to ensure we do not continue to over regulate the sector, that we let commonsense prevail and we iron out some of the senseless rules that apply.

A classic example is the need for a second licence once you get over 50 children in a centre. The double up on reporting, paperwork, ERO etc is just ridiculous. We don’t want 100 kids running around in a huge room running over each other – but there are sensible ways to ensure that space is used well without insisting on a second licence. The situation over a year ago of the Minister insisting that a centre split itself in two and double up on all resources and play equipment just made no sense. It is the classic case of bureaucrats doing what is best on paper but not in practice, and if it is the rules that are wrong then they need to be changed. It is not viable in this day and age, particularly in the cities, to have centres that cater for less than 50 children. We will make sure that the safety of the children is paramount but will put in measures that do not insist on 2 licences.

We can do better from a government point of view of making your jobs easier instead of more difficult. We make no bones about saying that, like you, we want all of your resources where possible to go directly to the children and not on administrators and paperwork shuffling. Instead of directing form filling and asking for more and more information, we will insist that the ministry looks at cutting back on bureaucracy and asks itself “is this really necessary” before making more work for centres and services.

It is constantly raised with me the question of why 6 hours a day as the limit for 20 hours a week? When a parent may choose to work 2 full days and spend the other 5 fulltime with their 3 year old, why are they financially penalised under 20 hours free? Why can’t they use the 20 hours over 2 days or even 2 and a half? I’m sure that they can come up with “that piece of research” that states that 6 hours a day is optimal for children’s learning – well again I reiterate that different children will benefit from different times and types of service etc – but all will benefit from time with their parents and it should be our role to support that – not make it more difficult.

What are we going to do about teacher shortages? How will we acknowledge the qualifications of UK and Australian trained ECE teachers? They take our very well and able teachers at the drop of a hat – we seem to try and make it more difficult for them. And does 12 months re training for qualified primary teachers to become ECE seem sensible?

Lastly I want to end on participation. We are yet to see any evidence that 20 hours has increased participation. I know anecdotaly that some children are attending for longer and as such in lower socio economic communities this is seeing real progress for children who perhaps need it most. But the recent report from the Manukau City Council clearly states that “enrolment in early childhood education in Manukau has not increased over the last three years”. In there own education report on the Free ECE update in February this year the Ministry states “ most services reported little increase in participation of new families and some reported less opportunity for new families to participate”.

The Labour Government constantly bandy around participation rates – I want to ask what participation means. Is it an hour a week? Once a child is enroled and attends for a couple of weeks but never returns again are they counted? The answer is yes.

Why aren’t we counting the real number? When answers around the number of children participating in 20 hours free are compared with the 92,000 3 and 4 year olds that were in some form of ECE prior to the introduction of 20 hours free – why aren’t we counting the real number, as at 2006 census we had 114,700 3 and 4 year olds, that’s over 22,000 3 and 4 year olds that do not get even considered in the participation rates of 20 hours free.

What remains to be done to ensure NZ has the best possible early childhood education? How about recognising the number of lost children? How about counting it like it really is and accepting that an hour here, or registering there but not attending is not participation. This one size fits all approach to early childhood education was never going to answer the difficult questions. We have some very real challenges ahead of us. Just building a centre and hoping that will change attitudes is not the answer either. But it is conferences like these, it is organisations like the early childhood council that advocate and challenge our thinking that will help us come up with solutions.

I love my job because it means that I get to see children most days and get to work with people like yourselves. What a privilege. You may be looking after our future generation, but what you do now is what is of the utmost importance because they are not just our adults of the future, but our children of today and there is truly no one, as far as I am concerned, who is as important. So thank you. Thanks for giving a damn and doing the work you do and thanks for having me here today.

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:54:00 +1300

2 April 2008

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I must say there are a few things said by the previous speakers that I certainly agree with. One would be when the Greens said it has been a long 2 years. It certainly feels like it and it certainly feels like it for the residents of Waitakere and I am sure for the councils, and particularly Waitakere City Council, which sponsored the bill.

I stand up with a smile because this bill has been a true reflection of democracy in New Zealand. I think in some respects we should stand up and be quite proud that there has been, most certainly, robust discussion around it. There has certainly been debate. I would certainly say that the residents of Waitakere support the Waitakere Ranges, as does the National Party. I do not think there can be any question of that.

On the poll, just for one moment, when people were asked whether they supported protecting the ranges, the majority said yes. I say with a wry smile that I think if I had been called I would have said yes as well. But there is no doubt that 221 submissions on a local government bill means that there was a strong interest in this legislation in the local community. The community was split and it was split pretty much fifty-fifty.

The local community has been split about this. I have been pretty upfront and available and have spoken to those who, I believe, support this bill. I have had no hesitancy in going to meetings where I have known I would not be the most popular person because the majority at those meetings were in favour of the bill, and I have had no hesitancy in making sure that my office door was open and that I listened to those who were at times rather zealous and incredibly passionate about the issue.

What I think is a bit of shame is that there has not been quite that feeling of openness and transparency from those who support the bill. In fact, we have just heard a speech—just before mine—that tries to paint the people who oppose this bill as being “devil developers” who want to cut up the ranges into a thousand pieces and see houses galore in a tight-fitting subdivision. That is grossly unfair because it is so far from the truth. If we ask around the residents who live in Waitakere, we will find that no one wants to see that sort of tight-fitting subdivision within the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Certainly, that is the answer we got when we talked about protection. So I do not think there is any question as to whether the debate was about a tight-fitting subdivision by those “devil developers”. Unfortunately, that is how the debate progressed.

I want to pick up on a few things, which some of my colleagues have already mentioned. One has to be the fact that landowners are not necessarily the enemy. They are not the ones who barged in and cut down all the trees and turned this into a high residential area. In fact, it is the opposite. In fact, the people and the landowners in Waitakere have restored and rejuvenated the area. They are passionate about it, and they need that opportunity. I think that to paint National members as the big baddies who want to carve it all up may fit the agenda of some people, but the reality is we do not believe that this legislation will achieve its intention, and we have been consistent in that view.

We believe that this legislation is unnecessary and will potentially create huge litigation costs for ratepayers—and it should be done throughout the nation if we see cumulative effects as being vitally important. I for one do not stand here and negatively go against those who have put forward this bill and are supporting it. I think the intention has been genuine, and I think the desired outcome is actually quite good. But will this bill do it and will it be any good for Waitakere? My answer is absolutely and categorically no. In the Local Government and Environment Committee we were not at any time assured that this bill would fulfil its purpose. I have heard that 25,000 people—that is the latest count—live in the area and will be affected. To say they are not affected is to ask why we need the bill. It is a simple as that.

There are other ways to get the desired results of this bill, and it is through the Resource Management Act and a local district plan. Let us let a district plan do what it should do and plan how a district should be. This bill will not improve the quality of environmental management. It will simply add to the bureaucracy of existing plans and laws.

I commend the members of the select committee who worked on this bill. What we see today is certainly not what we saw when the bill was first introduced. There will be so many people—well, not so many; I do not believe that many people actually listen to these debates—who will find it quite hard to believe that at the select committee, even on a bill this contentious, we saw cross-party support to work our way through it. We may certainly have come at it from different angles, and we certainly had different beliefs and wanted different outcomes, but as the bill was to become law, we had a desire to make this legislation as workable as possible for Waitakere residents.

I want to touch on the potential for New Zealand. Let us have no disbelief that we have opened a can of worms that means that legislation like this can now come throughout the country. I want to pick up on what the Hon Peter Dunne said. He said that no one can deny the Waitakere area its natural beauty. I look at clause 8, and note one of the heritage features must be “natural scenic beauty”. I challenge members in this Chamber to stand up and tell me of somewhere in New Zealand that does not have that. But I can say to my Waitakere colleagues and the residents who may be listening, that I do know of one place that does not have natural scenic beauty, and that would have to be the Glen Eden overbridge, but I will deal with that issue in another format, I think.

Chris Auchinvole: You’re probably right.

PAULA BENNETT: Yes—bring it on, ONTRACK! I want to talk about a couple of clauses. One, which was an improvement made by the select committee, means that the boundary of the heritage area can now be extended only by an Order in Council and has to be by way of a legislative amendment. That is certainly an improvement on the original provision. The features of the heritage area, which are mentioned in clause 8, are still, perhaps, of the most concern, certainly to us, because they are the most ambiguous and carry the highest risk of litigation. So the clause still seeks to “protect, restore, and enhance”. It still talks about the quietness and the darkness, but that sort of stuff is so open to interpretation. I cannot help but say to the Greens that a lot of their party members are involved in the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, and I sincerely hope it does not cost the Greens some membership and thousands and thousands of dollars, to be debating in court what the quietness and the darkness of the ranges really means.

It is important that the bill at least categorically states that if there is a conflict, the Resource Management Act prevails. Thank goodness! But, then, why have the bill if it will not do something that the Resource Management Act does not do?

It is fine for people to make little comments. It has been a personal attack for me, quite frankly, the whole way through, and people can go on about how completely awful I am or where I live and the fact that I do not actually live in the foothills area but live instead in poor old Henderson, which gets the raw end of this deal more often that not. It was fine for Mr Cunliffe to sit there earlier and talk about how no new person has been employed. That is not true. Already the Waitakere City Council has advertised for someone to work on this bill.

I finish with a final plea, and that plea would be that we turn this regional park into a national park. Let us give it that highest protection, and let the foothills and the rest of the area covered by this bill actually be under the National Parks Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Local Government Act. If we had stuck with them instead of yet another piece of legislation and bureaucracy, the Waitakere residents would be getting a better result.

Ayes 61 New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; M?ori Party 4; Progressive: 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 60 New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:31:00 +1300

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I stand to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, which is being promoted by the Waitakere City Council. First I will address the way in which the community has had to deal with this issue. Although differing opinions are a good thing, and it is good to come at things from different angles, there is absolutely no doubt that this bill has split the community to its detriment.

That is a fact. The member speaking previously, David Cunliffe, spoke about surveys being put out that show 81 percent support it, but we need to ask what question the people answered on that survey. Is there any doubt from members of the public living in Waitakere that they want to see those ranges protected? There is none. I have not yet met one person who does not want that protection. Certainly members of Parliament from this side of the Chamber can stand proudly and say they wish to see those ranges protected.

The preamble to this bill talks a lot about what those ranges mean not just to the Waitakere area but also to the wider Auckland area in general. Yes, for those of us who live there and look at the ranges, we do think they are jolly special. The National Party stands up and says that if we really think the ranges are as special as that, then we should protect them, and we should give them the highest protection in the land by turning them into a national park. There are no national parks north of Taup?, and if we are serious about seeing the Waitakere area truly protected, then there is no greater protection that we could give the ranges and the regional park than to turn the area into a national park. That is what the National Party puts on the table. It is not the first time we have said publicly that we think that idea should go to the New Zealand Conservation Authority and that it should be given due consideration.

But this bill affects all those people who live in the area. The population was 21,000 in 2005, I say to Mr Jones, although I think it is more than that now. I do not have an exact number at this stage, but I think we are talking about significantly more people than that. As a consequence, this bill is putting a caveat over those people’s land, and if it is not, then why do we have the bill? It is as simple as that. If this bill will not affect detrimentally what people can do with their own land, then why do we have the bill?

Let us put a few other facts on the table at this stage, as well. This area is not being carved up willy-nilly for town houses and medium-density housing, let alone high-density housing. This area already has very strict rules about what can happen and the way in which it can happen. There are already rules about the land within the heritage area affected by this bill. People cannot just build a house right next door, and they are restricted in what they can do with their property. Communities within the Waitakere Ranges have spent not just months but years working on their land area management plans. They have consulted, talked, and met, and they have been in consultation with the councils and have decided what is best for their area. And now we have legislation coming along that says doing all that is not enough. That is fundamentally wrong.

What can happen in the land affected by this bill at the moment—the land mass and the boundaries that we are talking about—is incredibly limited. There are families on 8 hectares who would like to build another home for their families. That is the sort of stuff we are talking about; it is not mass land development. We are not talking about subdivisions like Henderson Heights, where I live, and places like that where some of us choose to live. We are not talking about areas like that. In the argument on this bill over the years, we have managed to have hysteria around mass housing and subdivisions, and there has been talk about the land being unable to cope with those things, but that simply is not true.
We are talking about development in an area such as Pih?, for example.

I think I heard from the council just recently that something like only six sections are for sale now within the Pih? area. The development that can go on in an area like that is fairly limited. I would be one who would stand up to say that if we were to put any caveats on property, then perhaps that is the sort of area where we might do it. We might say that we do not want a lot more housing going into an area like that, purely because of the way the land is.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : There are a few points I want to get through on the preamble, and one we have much concern about really is the vagueness of the bill—the fact that it is open to interpretation—and it is the opinion of this side of the Committee that the only winners out of the whole bill will be lawyers. We will see more litigation, we will see lawyers in courts, and we will see them try to battle out this piece of legislation that, quite frankly, is not succinct and does not accomplish anything.

I would like to add that I think some good people in the community have gone into this with perhaps a good intention, and their intention, I think, has been to protect the very ranges and the heritage area that the bill lays out in the schedules. But, all good intentions aside, what we are dealing with in this Committee is the fact that the bill will be enacted legislation.

The concern on this side is that we actually believe it will be yet another layer of bureaucracy, and we will see lawyers having to interpret statements a little bit like “natural and dynamic character;”, clause 8(c)(i).

Hon Shane Jones: Give us examples.

PAULA BENNETT: Now that phrase may actually even explain the member who just interjected. We may speak about that very member and say he is natural, and of a dynamic character in some way or another, but do we define a piece of land that way? What does that mean? I think that in this Committee alone we could come up with 121 definitions from members of what “natural and dynamic character” actually means. Another example, which we could apply to that member, is “the quietness and darkness of the Waitakere Ranges”, in clause 8(e). So are we concerned about bird calls? Are we concerned about cars driving through the ranges on a scenic road and heading out to P?h??

Hon Member: Turn their lights out.

PAULA BENNETT: Should drivers turn their headlights off to protect the darkness of the ranges? Should we let only a certain cc rating of vehicle drive through the ranges so that we actually protect the quietness? As a westie, I could say there is the odd person who likes to hoon it up a little. So are we actually going to start restricting the cc rating of vehicles that can run—[Interruption]

For those who cannot hear them, I tell members that the Greens are speaking up now. I will be most interested to hear them speak on this bill, because during the bill’s first reading I must say that at least Nandor Tanczos said they had some very serious concerns about it. During the first reading they raised concerns about singling out one piece of land within New Zealand and asking why one particular place was being singled out for special attention in a bill, and they had real concerns about that practice being shared throughout the country. I think that concern is incredibly legitimate.

I will give just one more example, because I know that the member Shane Jones is excited about hearing one, and it is a quote from clause 8(i)(ii): “the distinctive harmony, pleasantness,”. So to reiterate, the types of things we could expect to hear in future court cases, and could expect to hear time and time again, will be the sorts of language around natural and dynamic character, the quietness and darkness of the ranges, and distinctive harmony and pleasantness. They are just three examples that are picked out quite easily from the bill, and that this side of the Committee has genuine concerns about. If we debated them quite openly I think members would find there would be many different meanings from many different people. How can a piece of legislation possibly hope to legislate for that sort of language?When we talk about the ranges, it is so easy to do the sort of “devil developers” and “eco-angels” labelling used during the submission process but, quite frankly, I think that that is a very naive way to try to define this argument. People on both sides have come from both sides of the argument. We certainly heard people in the submission process talking about the environment, the rehabilitation of the ranges and their natural resources, and the fact that people who live there and who have moved in during the last 50 or 60 years have done more in relation to the natural resources of the land than those who were there before. They are the ones who have replanted, they are the ones who have looked after the land, and they are the ones who have regenerated it.

That is something that the Greens should take into consideration. People are not always the enemy.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I stand to speak on the purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in our mind and the intention that members had when the bill was first introduced, and that of the Waitakere City Council in the long discussions we have had for more than 10 years in the community of Waitakere and west Auckland, as has been stated by members previously.

The purpose of the bill was certainly to protect the ranges. As has previously been stated, I do not think that anyone can deny that protecting the ranges is a favourable thing to do. No one in this Chamber would disagree with that, and National certainly would not, either.But we are not talking about just the ranges. We are not talking about just the area of the regional park, which, as we have stated, should be a national park, anyway. We should be looking at well and truly protecting that area and turning it into a national park. We are actually talking about the foothills, about private land, and about more than 21,000 people who live in that area. What will happen to those very people once this bill is introduced? Those are the questions these people have had for the last 10 years, and I do not think they will be answered when the bill is introduced.

Although the purpose of the bill may be admirable in many cases, it simply will not be achieved through this bill. The ranges and the foothills area will not be any more protected. What will happen is that there will be court case after court case, uncertainty, and language that, quite frankly, leaves everyone in doubt as to what it actually means. That will not help anyone. It will not help the supporters of the bill, quite frankly, and certainly it will not help those who oppose it. The purpose of the bill, although admirable in wanting to protect that area of New Zealand considered to be unique, beautiful, and the backdrop to Auckland City—which of course it is—will not do that.

We hear talk about development being the main reason for the introduction of the bill but if those members actually knew the area, they would know that local area plans are already in place to address development in the very area that this bill covers. There are already caveats that mean there can be no more than one or two houses on a 4-acre block, unless they are there already. So there are already arrangements in place now, because the people of New Zealand and the people of Waitakere love that land and do not want to see either medium or high-density housing up in the ranges, but they do not believe that this bill will help matters. Although the purpose of the legislation may be admirable, having legislation that is, quite frankly, too ambiguous to make sense of, is not the answer for those who seek to protect that area.

How should the area be protected then? We have the Resource Management Act. We have a city council that is elected every 3 years and goes out to the community with its vision for Waitakere City. Those very people who are on our local councils are selected when they go out every 3 years and talk about their vision for the city they wish to serve. They have the means and power to put in place that vision. They do it in consultation with the people and have been doing so for years. They should continue. We have a Resource Management Act that actually addresses these very issues that arise in this document. If there are problems with that Act, and people believe that it is not doing what it should be doing, then perhaps they should look at amending the Act.
Why should a member’s bill address only an issue in a small local area, when there are other ways to fix the problem?

No one would say there should be medium or high-density housing in that area. No one would say the land should be carved up for houses to be built on top of each other. But this bill will not prevent that, and that is what those members do not understand. Although the purpose clause may be admirable, in reality we will be in litigation time and time again because the purpose of the bill cannot be fulfilled through this legislation. Another layer of bureaucracy will not solve the problem that those members seem to think is there. If one looks at the boundaries and drives around the boundary for the heritage area, one will find—

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I rise to speak to Part 2. The first part of Part 2 talks about boundaries, and I will address those for a little while.

At the moment the boundaries do not take in just the ranges; I think that is really important for people to acknowledge. So the title of the bill, which we will discuss in a lot more detail later, totally misrepresents what the bill is about. When members talk about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, they actually mean the bill concerning the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Those foothills are perhaps what is most at debate today, and they certainly are from my perspective.

We are talking about some of the villages within the Waitakere Ranges. I have to make a bit of a confession here in that I feel more sympathy for people living there than I do for those living in the foothills in other areas, because I see that the people in those villages are suffering from a bit of intensification and are trying to keep their landscape the same. I do not believe that this bill is the way to address those issues, but I can certainly acknowledge that people living in places like the beautiful Karekare, P?h?, and Bethells beaches are restricted because of the landscape. Those places really are little coastal villages tucked into a certain area; only so many houses can be fitted in and only a certain type of housing perhaps suits the area. We can better acknowledge that situation, but the bill quite simply will not help those people. What would help them is a council that acknowledges the constraints of that area, a Resource Management Act that works alongside those constraints, and local area plans that can address the issues.
But we are talking about huge areas of the foothills—which go into Titirangi, Glen Eden, Henderson, Swanson, Waitakere village, and up to Muriwai—when we are thinking about how this bill works, land-wise. If some of those areas were simply not included in the boundaries, then I think we would have seen a lot more support for this bill in the Committee. I think we would have been hearing more from the National Party about how we might have been able to find a compromise if the boundaries had not been so broad, and if they had not taken in what in so many respects are actually residential areas that we notice when we drive around them.

How do the heritage areas the bill talks about differ? Clause 8(2)(a)(i) in Part 2 talks about heritage features including “large continuous areas of primary and regenerating lowland …”. Why is that land regenerating? It is regenerating because the people there love the land and care for it, and they have put in the effort to bring it back to its absolute natural beauty. Let us not pretend that that area, over time, was not bogged down and destroyed. When there was milling and everything that went on over a hundred years ago, the ranges, in fact, were quite a sad place to look at, in many parts. People moved in. People are not the enemy; people love the land, look after the land, and have actually nurtured and regenerated it to the state it is now. It can only get better.

To “have intrinsic value:”, in clause 8(2)(a)(ii), is part of the heritage characteristics that are defined in this bill, as are to “provide a diversity of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna:”, in sub-paragraph (iii), and “to collect, store, and produce high quality water:”, in sub-paragraph (iv). The list goes on. The other challenge I put out, and something I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of the bill, is how that situation is different from, for example, that of my colleague and local MP Chris Tremain—who does a fantastic job—when he talks about the Napier hills and the hills that surround his very area. How is there a difference, really, when we look at that building-up and the changes wanted there?

Mark Blumsky: A great local MP.

PAULA BENNETT: He is a fantastic local MP. The member is right; he is an outstanding local MP. There is no doubt of that.

I would like to hear from the promoter of bill, if she might just take a little time to talk. Some of us who sat through the select committee process understand perhaps how those boundaries were decided on, but I think a lot of people out there would like to hear that. One thing I commend the select committee for, as I think it did a great job with this—and I commend the council and officials, as well—is that it changed what was in the original drafting of the bill. Speaking from memory, I think the original draft stated that the boundaries could be changed by the council, but now the bill states that the legislation has to come back for boundaries to be changed only by an Act of Parliament. That is a good thing

PAULA BENNETT (National) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, which discusses, amongst other things, local authorities having to monitor and report on certain matters relating to the heritage area.

I will speak a bit more about that monitoring and about how that reporting can happen.
One of the concerns that National wants to raise at this time is around local area plans, local area management plans, and long-term council community plans. Just so everyone is clear—

Mark Blumsky: That’s too confusing.

PAULA BENNETT: It is a little bit confusing, as my colleague says. When it comes to reporting, one of the important things for the community is that it has spent a lot of time on long-term council community plans. Those plans have been done independently and under huge consultation. I commend the councils for the work they have done with the community to come to some sort of agreement as to what it wants in a long-term plan and how it can be achieved.

When this bill was first introduced it stated that the councils would have local area management plans, which were then changed to local area plans. Now we have local area plans instead of local area management plans—just so we are all clear. How the local area plans will be reported on and how they fit in with the long-term council community plans is what I think should be of importance to the region. What is of most concern is that the community has already worked out what it wants in a 10-year plan. Members of the community have already set down what direction they want. They have voted in an appropriate council, and their concern is how what they want will actually be achieved.

It is quite interesting; I was reading a press release from the Waitakere City Council on 10 March—just 2 days ago. The council is quite clearly talking about its budget deliberations. Councillor Janet Clews is quoted throughout the press release. She is a councillor whom I have a lot of respect for, and she has earned a lot of respect throughout the community. She is chair of Waitakere City Council’s long-term council community plan and annual plan special committee. She talks about budget deliberations and about what needs to be done over a period of time. The press statement quite clearly states: “While the Annual Plan sets the council’s budget for the coming financial year the long-term council community plan (LTTCP) outlines the direction and spending intentions for the next 10 years.” She then says: “It is important that the public know this is the third year of the LTCCP … We are reviewing work and projects that have already been consulted on and agreed, so we can’t deviate a long way from that plan.” The council cannot deviate a long way from the plan that was decided on in 2006. Yet it now wants to introduce a law that will deviate from the plan. It is so concerned about this issue that it will deviate from the long-term council community plan, which it spent so much time consulting its community on. That seems absolutely ludicrous, and National certainly has questions around how it can be possible and how it can make sense.

Looking at how the councils will report back—under Part 3—I found it ironic to be reading an email from our mayor, Bob Harvey. He is a good man and a gutsy man, and always puts a smile on someone’s face, even though he is a former president of the party on the other side of the House—but good on him. He says point-blank in the email that ONTRACK owns this land, that it tends to be a law unto itself, and that there is nothing we can do. The council is trying in this bill to have legislation that will state point-blank what people can do with private land, but, in another breath, the mayor is turning round and saying about ONTRACK, with which the community has a huge issue with regards to the proposed railway maintenance depot: “Sorry, we cannot do anything. It’s private land. It’s not owned by us.”

Gordon Copeland: It’s a double standard.

PAULA BENNETT: It is; it is a complete and utter double standard. It is hypocrisy at its best when the council turns round and says it cannot do anything about something that the community does not want, that will actually disturb residents in a local area, because it is on private land owned by ONTRACK.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : I will stick with Part 3. I wish to speak about the monitoring and reporting on certain matters relating to the heritage area, and I think there is a good chance that I will not take the full 5 minutes.

The monitoring and reporting is about working towards achieving the objectives set out in the bill. So it is about the progress made towards achieving the objectives, and it is that I would like to stress.

The question I have for Lynne Pillay, the member in the chair, concerns how we will monitor and report on the natural and historic resources in respect of their intrinsic worth and their benefit for, use by, and enjoyment by people. How will we report and monitor when we are talking about such things as the quietness and the darkness of the ranges? Will council officials sit out in the ranges with a decibel rating machine, deciding how loud it is and whether it is acceptable? If we are going to have that—because the objective is about the quietness and the darkness of the ranges—then the question is whether the council has already done that. We must have something to report against. So are we in a situation where the natural landscape; the intrinsic value, worth, and benefit; and the quietness and darkness of the ranges will be reported and monitored by councillors or council officials who go out and measure it? How will they do that?

We simply cannot have a provision that says we will monitor and report certain matters relating to the objectives when the objectives are stated in such waffly language that means nothing, and when the matters are something we cannot actually monitor and report against. I am just taking three examples, and they are quite easy ones: the quietness of the ranges, the darkness of the ranges, and their intrinsic worth and value, which are terms used in the objectives of the bill. How will we report and monitor progress on these objectives, and how have we reported and monitored on the area to date so we can say what we are monitoring against? That is my question.

General Debate 17 October 2007

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:22:00 +1300

PAULA BENNETT (National) : Well, we have finally had it; we have been building up to it for the last couple of weeks. We were told when we came back from the adjournment that there would be big hits—that attacks from the left would be hitting the right. And we were told to brace ourselves for the moment when Labour members would come at us, at National, and that we should be prepared for that. So we fronted up on the first day after the adjournment. We came in and sat here, and we wondered where they were. The Labour members were not to be heard; they could barely be seen. In fact, they sat there, grey, dishevelled, and not quite sure what to do with themselves. So we have got through the situation. We have held them to account for yet another few days, and today I think we had the attack. I think today, I tell my colleagues, we saw the attack, and was it not like being hit with a wet bus ticket? Was it not actually just a little sad? The Labour members ran out a few lines—the lines had obviously been passed around them from the research people, and they had been told to mention the cap on the costs of general practitioner visits. We have just heard some good lines from the member who spoke before me, who said “Labour, one; National, tired” or something a bit like that.
But the fact that we all have to accept is that the Labour members over there are nervous. They have a Cabinet reshuffle coming up, they are not sure about their jobs, and no one knows who is standing. We have members of Parliament who ran for councils, with some getting in and some not getting in. We can ask who will be standing as Labour candidates next time, and the announcement of that has been bumped backwards. Then we have a Cabinet reshuffle to be announced as well as that. There is too much on the minds of Labour members for them to be worried about what is actually going on over on this side of the House. So the attack has been all on. We have had “Angry Ruth Dyson”, and Ruth Dyson does “angry” pretty well, we have to say. Well, I think it was the best we could see.
But I am going to enter into this debate by saying I make absolutely no apology for demanding, on behalf of New Zealanders, that they get some of their own money back. And I will stand up here—and I stand here proudly on behalf of the National Party—and say I make no apology for asking for some of New Zealanders’ money to be put back in their own pockets. Quite frankly, they deserve it. Australian workers have received their share of the Australian Government’s Budget surpluses and back-to-back tax cuts, and now it is New Zealanders’ turn. There should be no more “chewing gum tax cuts”: no more taking tax cuts away from people when they wanted them, and no more thinking that something can be dangled before people in an election year and made to count.
The arrogance of the Labour Party is starting to trickle through. So we hear some Australians will be receiving only 20 bucks a week. Let us talk about what average New Zealanders—perhaps parents with a family of two—could do with $20 a week. The reality is that with that sort of money they could buy three loaves of bread,—which would equal $5.49—500g of butter, a bag of apples, and some peanut butter, and they could feed their family lunch for a week. A couple could feed their family their school lunches for a week. That is what some of those families might choose to do; those families might choose to do that for themselves. But at no point does this Labour Government think that it can have a sense of trust in people—that people could spend that 20 bucks for the benefit of themselves and their own families. At no point is there a level of respect for the fact that New Zealanders might actually do what is best for themselves and their own families.
We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that welfare dependency is not fair on them. We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that they know what is best for themselves and their families. Even some of those who are currently welfare dependent, and even some of those who are struggling from week to week, will look us in the eye and nod in agreement with that. They know that they can do better for themselves if given the chance, and if given a little bit of respect. So I say: “Give the money back!”. It is not rocket science; it is not very hard to do, although one would think it was. One would think Dr Cullen had to reach into his own pocket and hand out his own money. It is time that a timely reminder was put to the Labour Government that the money is New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and that the Government should take only what is needed in order for it to get by. The issue is as simple as that.

Hansard Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill - In Committee

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:08:00 +1300

17 October

Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee
[Volume:642;Page:12477]
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 19 September.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : Unlike the member who spoke before me, Sue Moroney, I will not stand up and make allegations about members on the other side of the Chamber as to whether they are family-friendly, whether they like children, or whether they support them. Those sorts of allegations make members on that side of the Chamber be seen in the light of what they truly are, which is, quite frankly, just nasty and a bit angry, when it really comes down to it.

New subsection (3) under new section 69AAI is one that I certainly have questions about and would be interested in discussing a little more. The subsection states: “An application under subsection (2) must be made within 3 months after the date on which the employer notified the employee that the employee’s request was refused.” Supplementary Order Paper 148 has changed that date to 12 months. That just seems absolutely incredible. So not within 3 months, but within 12 months, after a request for flexible working hours, for whatever reason, an application can still be made. That just seems absolutely incredible and far too long. It is simply too long.

The other section in this part is the section stating that within 12 months an employee can make only one request. As we know, flexible working hours are happening now. As we have heard many times from this side of the Chamber, surveys and reports from employers and employees state, time and time again, that requests for flexible working hours are being made and are being met. So now we will have a law, and once we start putting in laws we find that people do things to the letter. That is what most of our employers do—they do things to the letter.

So a family can make a formal request—and let us just think about what might happen for that family. The family might need special circumstances around childcare for their 4-year-old, so they put in a request noting the hours that would suit around childcare for that young one. They put that request in to the employer and it is—or is not, as the case may be—accepted, and that process can go through.

But for 12 months after that family have made their formal request, they no longer have the opportunity under this legislation—and the other side of the Chamber is arguing that we need legislation around this—to make another request. So with this legislation those members have actually restricted people’s rights to make more than one request. They can ask only once.

What if the childcare arrangements change within that 12-month period? What could well happen is that the centre down the road drops 23 hours—because they see what an absolute hoax it is and can no longer keep in business if they have it—and that means that that child cannot go to that centre for 20 hours. That means that the family need to make other arrangements.

If one is an employer and is going by the letter of this legislation—which an employer is likely to do, because we have law-abiding employers out there; they do everything they can to stay within the legislation and the rules that are put around them—then that person will be worse off. I think that is an absolute tragedy and an absolute shame, and it will, more times than not, work against parents and their families.

There is no bigger argument than the fact that this is legislation for the sake of legislation. No one supports flexible working hours! We have heard it said in this House and we may as well say it again—any sensible employers will accommodate their employees in any way they possibly can, and they do. They do it now, as we know. They accommodate their staff whenever they can. The amount of informal arrangements that are made between employee and employer, or employer and employee, happen because of the employees themselves. What happens time and time again is that the employees get together and say: “Hey, listen, how about I start earlier and you start later. This will make sure the shop’s still open until this time.”, and then everyone is happy, and then that changes a month later because this issue affects people’s lives, and that is what they do. More often than not, they negotiate that among themselves and they make it work.

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:26:00 +1200

19 September

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading

PAULA BENNETT: I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. [Interruption] I hear little threats from the opposite side of the Chamber that my speech will be sent to wherever the members there like to send it. I say: “Good luck!”. I say to the previous speaker, the chairwoman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, if that was a promotional speech, then it was not a particularly good one. As chairwoman she sat through the submission process and heard from both sides about just how hugely contentious this bill is in the west Auckland area and in Waitakere. I say that for her to stand in this House and try to blame the Opposition for stirring up a process is wrong. This issue was already well on the way before I came along as a candidate, and was well on the way when there were meetings with over 600 people present, where the things being raised were real concerns. The member thinks that if one has an opinion, one is stirring up feelings out in the community. That is another example of how nervous Government members feel about having a debate on the actual issue, instead of making personal attacks and doing everything else that they do. That is all good and all fine, and I tell them to bring it on however they like, quite frankly.

Never before has a local bill, in the experience of some of my colleagues who have been around Parliament far longer than I have, been as contentious as this bill in a local area. The people who spoke in the submission process were heartfelt, genuine, and emotional about the bill, and that came from both sides of the argument. That is the reality; both sides sat there. It was bad enough to read their submissions, but to hear them speak—and we heard over 90 of them in the Waitakere area when we went there—really struck us. It would be fair to say members of the committee from both sides felt that way, and we could see the issue was very personal for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It was interesting, though, that the argument pretty quickly turned into one of the Government members of the committee trying to espouse the view, as they were today as well, that it was one between eco-angels and devil developers. Of course, there is nothing further from the truth. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see any sort of tight-fitting subdivision in either the ranges or the foothills. That is the reality.

It is appropriate to hear about some of the problems and to give a voice to some of the people who are absolutely struggling under what they perceive this legislation will actually mean for them. One states: “My whanau owns a 6 acre property surrounded by an urban environment, a long way from the Waitakere Ranges. We made an application to the council to gain consent to build a granny flat for our whanau.”—for the parents, actually. The person goes on to state: “At the time of lodging our application, we were advised that although a discretionary activity, there was no issue from their perspective. It has now cost our whanau $9,000 to try and meet the council’s existing RMA requirements.” So the whanau had got all the neighbours’ approval without any difficulty, and it was easy to get the council’s consent. However, the person then states: “We have since learnt that the proposed Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been influential in stalling the application process in gaining resource consent and may prevent us from building suitable accommodation for our parents.” We heard those sorts of stories time and time again from people.

Let us get some of the realities into this debate and talk about what this legislation means for people. It is easy to make legislation that will go across the area and be woolly in its language, and it will be interpreted by lawyers at the end of the day, because that is what happens. Government members can put up all the arguments in the world, but this issue is about people and is about what this legislation means for them in their area. That is what is really important.

I was really taken by one story of a family that had been in the area since 1860. The family talked about its forebears having been part of the milling process, and said one could certainly see the changes in the area that have occurred in well over 130 or 140 years. The family said one would be almost ashamed to think one’s forebears were part of the milling process at that time. But that family is now very proud of the regeneration its members have been a part of. There can be as much research as one wants, on the other side. One can certainly see the results of that, and can walk around and see the evidence of the regeneration that has taken place because of the input of local people and what they are doing in the area.

I put a challenge forward in all seriousness to my own colleagues and to all MPs, including those in the Maori Party, I say to Mr Sharples. I put a challenge forward to the House. I ask those MPs who are voting in support of this bill to demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of the effects of it by voluntarily covenanting their own titles to properties within their personal control, those properties being anywhere in New Zealand, with the same classification and restrictions that will apply to landowners in the Waitakere area covered under this legislation. If they are not prepared to do that, their own consciences should direct them to vote against this bill. As my colleague pointed out, many areas within New Zealand could come under provisions like those in this legislation. MPs who are prepared to support this bill should stand up and say they will have their own whanau and own land affected by the same restrictions that they are putting people under in the Waitakere Ranges area. So all MPs who support the bill should stand up—including Maori MPs—and be proud that what they are doing is putting in place a covenant that will have restrictions on the use of their land. If that makes us all feel better, then I say good luck to us.

Now there is no actual protection greater than that given to the land in a national park. There is no Act that gives greater protection than that, so if we are truly serious about giving this land the greatest possible protection, then that is what we should be doing. There are no national parks north of Taupo, as we have already said, and giving the Waitakere Ranges that status would actually lock in that sort of protection. The National Parks Act states, in section 4(1), that its provisions are “for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation” should be covered. That covers the Waitakere Ranges without a doubt.

We can look at the argument and see that it has been turned into one of groups being absolutely pitched against one another, and we can look at the numerous surveys that have been done. It was quite interesting to find, in the process of hearing submissions, that when my colleague Mr John Carter asked every submitter whether he or she had been surveyed about the bill, not a single one of them could stand up and say that he or she had. It was really quite fascinating to be unable to find the people who had been surveyed, and there were questions about whether the survey was truly as representative as had been said. People choose to live in areas like the Waitakere Ranges because they absolutely love them. I think there is evidence, time and time again, of the care and protection that people give to this area. In all fairness, when one looks at some of the properties and the way they are treated, one sees they are treated better than the Auckland Regional Council and the local councils treat their properties. That happens because the owners care more about them than the councils do about their properties, and they actually make sure they put their energy into them.

I truly, truly believe that it is a bad precedent for Parliament to bypass the checks and balances of the plan-making process in the Environment Court and impose what is an overriding plan. I fundamentally, in myself, think this bill is bad legislation. It is an absolute shame that it will not do what those well-intentioned people hope it will do. Some people have gone out and said that this is the way they want to protect the ranges. I, unlike the members on the other side of the House, am not going to stand up and lambaste those on the other side who have a different opinion from mine. I actually think that they are quite well intentioned, and that fundamentally they are trying to protect the ranges. I think that is what the council is trying to do, and that it is well intentioned. But it is our fundamental belief that this legislation will not protect the ranges, and that its ramifications actually go far outside that briefing.

This bill has been a learning experience for me—I do not make any pretences about that. I have learnt more than I previously knew about local area plans, about district councils, about councils and their own regional plans, and about long-term council community plans. I have learnt about the process of going to the community and asking what it wants, and, boy, at times I heard that it was a very, very long process to achieve what it wants. Oratia is actually a classic example of a community with its own long-term council community plan. The people there were actually saying that they felt they had gone through a process that was long term and understandable, and that to see legislation like this come in and cut through what they as individuals had already participated in was hugely hurtful and detrimental to them.

In conclusion, I say we just do not believe that this bill will protect the ranges to the same extent as such a process would, and for that reason we will be voting against it.

Hansard: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill - Second Reading

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:39:00 +1200

Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill - Second Reading
[Volume:641;Page:11624]
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill
Second Reading

PAULA BENNETT (National) : It is something to be speaking tonight about flexible working conditions! I suppose the first thing I would acknowledge about the Green Party, and about Sue Kedgley who has put this bill forward, is that it has raised the debate to a different level in our society. In the last 14 months we have certainly heard employers in particular talking a bit more about flexible working hours, what it means for them, and how they can deliver it to their employees. There are obviously things that we think are fundamentally wrong with the bill, but I would like to start by discussing flexible working hours and what the National Party believes they mean for employees out there, and for employers as well.

We believe that a change toward flexible working hours is already happening. We have seen that in the research data coming out - that up to 83 percent of employers are actually giving flexible working hours to their employees at the current time. I have personal experience, having worked in the recruitment field before coming into Parliament. I was in a situation of negotiating contracts and conditions for people going into employment, and I would certainly agree that the issue that constantly came up was not the issue of getting more money. More often than not, particularly for women, the issue was of the hours they were going to work. If people had young children, they were looking for something that gave them the opportunity to spend time with them. That was vitally important to those people. Equally, people without children were looking for a block of time off half a day every fortnight which would mean more to them for whatever reason they wanted to spend that time on. I never saw the reason as being what was important, but I saw the work-life balance as being what was vital.

So in all fairness there was constant negotiation. Employers who were smart enough to know they were living in a tight labour market knew that if they wanted to have good people on board, or if they had good people already working for them and wanted to keep them, the best thing to do was to recognise what their employees concerns and issues were, and to adjust the workplace to the best of their ability to accommodate them. We see that on a day-to-day basis, and we heard stories about it at the select committee from the submitters who came forward. What I found amusing in the submission process was that we often heard people say: "Well, I'm OK, but I'm worried about other people" and that is where it came from. We heard a lot of people talk about how they had been able to negotiate flexible working hours for themselves.

I want to keep on this issue a little bit, because I do not think we are all really grasping how absolutely important it is and just what the effects are. A lot of lip-service is going on, certainly from Labour, but it is about time we saw some serious action. What we hear time and time again is that the Government wants to see more women get into productive work. We certainly heard it from the Prime Minister; it is what she wants. We remember that from the Speech from the Throne. So that means, by definition, that women who choose to raise their families are not seen as being in productive work. We would like to see more research about the long-term effects on women who are going into paid work and the time that that takes them away from their families. We need to start asking some of the questions we have about what the long-term effects will be on those families, and what that means for them. So when we have such a push towards that's when we see children going into childcare and early childhood education at a younger age, and when we see women in situations where they feel they have no choice but to go into paid work and so make that choice we wonder about the point of this legislation, which we feel is legislation for the sake of it and not legislation that will solve some of those problems. We can deal with the rhetoric, but until we deal with the facts I think there should be some huge concern going on there.

Awareness is good, and it has stimulated debate. I suppose if this were a different debate I would be asking the Minister of Labour to give us an account of the work-life balance project that she has initiated and has been running. It would certainly be of interest to us in the National Party, because we obviously have equal concerns about the flexibility of hours and people's ability to get that work-life balance. The Minster has certainly recognised that and put a project in place. She has been going around to try to educate employers, but we are not seeing what sort of results have come from that. So one presumes that that project must have failed if we now need to legislate; it is as simple as that. Perhaps we should have stuck with a programme of educating employers, and talking to employees more often about their rights. Time and time again we have heard from employers that they would allow more flexibility if they knew what each individual really wanted, but that they are not hearing that. I certainly agree with a previous speaker from the Maori Party who spoke about that inequality, and about people feeling they cannot stand up and actually ask for it. Legislating will not fix that, quite frankly, but educating would have.

I find it quite amusing to hear members on the other side of the House bleating on. Those members should talk a bit more about the role of the unions in relation to the most vulnerable workers, because we wonder how well they are educating those vulnerable workers they say they speak for, time and time again. The unions need to let workers know that any one of them, at any time, can step up and ask for flexible working hours. Anyone can ask for flexible working hours at any time, and that is a really important fact for this House to take note of. It is quite easy for a member to stand up on that side of the House and paint us as the ogres who do not care about workers and who do not understand the pressures people live with on a day-to-day basis. The reality is that we are dealing with legislation that will be more arbitrary, create more bureaucracy, and make it more difficult for those people to stand up and ask.

So do we need an education programme for employees in order for them to understand what their rights are, and to give them an understanding of how they can step up and approach people and know what they can do? Without a doubt, they should stand up. The work-life balance project was not an absolutely bad idea. It was a reasonably good one, but we are not seeing it through to its full conclusion. Instead, it is being interrupted halfway through with legislation that will make this process a lot more arduous, and there will be many times when it will not get the results for those people that the Government really wants.

One of the concerns we have; and it is quite a tough one; is that someone can apply for flexible hours only once every 12 months. So there is a 12-month clause in the bill, and although members may say that people can do it in other ways, if we go by this legislation and one presumes that people will abide by the rules and regulation we see that they can apply only once every 12 months. Get in the real world! Things change -that is the reality of it. So people who have arrangements with their partners to work certain hours one week and to share childcare issues together, will all of a sudden find themselves in a situation where they cannot ask again in that 12-month period, because every one else has.

What happens at present? Actually, we find that employees negotiate amongst themselves, and that is happening more and more. We heard that from people who came forward to the select committee with submissions. Those people said that time and time again employees were working out their own negotiations, then taking them forward to the employer in terms of how they would job-swap, who would fill which shifts, and what hours they would work. It has been proven time and time again that this is the kind of thing that really works. So if we accept that flexible working hours are already happening, and if we accept that people have the right to ask for them and can ask for them, on any given day at any given time, then this bill is really just another form of a grievance process that will be used by some employees who are aggrieved by their employers and want to take them through the process.

I will talk through this process quickly, in the last minute that I have. Aggrieved employees can firstly go to a labour inspector, so that is another level of bureaucracy that has been put in since the bill was first introduced 14 months ago. If the labour inspector does not go for that, the employee then can go to mediation at the Employment Relations Authority. Appeals by the losing party will then be heard successively by the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal, and, ultimately, there is the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. Obviously, there was a concern that this process might happen, because a clause was put in to say that the most anyone can go for in compensation is an amount equal to the employee's pay for 8 weeks, if it is found that through this process the employee should have been given those flexible hours. However, according to this bill the judicial system is not permitted to overturn an employer's decision, which seems absolutely ludicrous in itself. Thank you.

Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:58:00 +1200

Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill — In Committee

PAULA BENNETT (National) : The National Party was quite struck that the purpose of the bill is to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 to end age discrimination in employment by removing the ability of the Governor-General to set, by Order in Council, minimum wage rates defined by reference to the age of workers, amongst other things. I would be quite keen to hear the matter discussed in more detail, if the honourable member Sue Bradford would like to take a call.

The National Party has huge concerns about the ending of age discrimination in respect of young people in smaller towns. I heard some of the submissions and arguments made about places like fast-food restaurants in small towns where people are working next to each other, doing the same job, but are paid differently because they are different ages. To be honest, some of what they said made sense, and when we heard from the young people themselves we were moved by their stories and agreed they were doing exactly the same job.

The concern I have has also been expressed by other members on this side of the Chamber when we have discussed this bill at length. We have not made our decision lightly, because it affects young people. Obviously, in the National Party we agree that people should be paid what they are worth. There is no question about that.
We could give the example of Levin, a small place that has mechanics, hairdressers, small businesses, and small retailers. They often take on someone from school to give that person a go. Those businesses do not have much money, or much fat. They do not take on that young person to make the business some money, or even really for that person to have a huge input into the business at that time, but they see the benefit for the longer term of taking on that person. The businesses may be strapped for cash and not making a lot, but by paying the minimum wage rate, they can take on a young person. For example, I have a dear friend in Taupo who owns a hair salon. She takes on someone from school, on late nights on Thursdays and Saturday mornings. She said that, to be honest, the young person sweeps a few floors and does not really do much, but it gives that young person a taste for the industry. It takes a huge commitment to train as a hairdresser. Trainee hairdressers work for a long time for only a little money, in the hope that the qualification will lead to something worthwhile. My friend said that it is a huge commitment to undertake.

The purpose of the bill is to remove age discrimination. The National Party has huge concerns that the bill actually discriminates against young people, because small businesses in smaller towns cannot afford to give young people a go if they have to pay them adult rates. Those young people will end up in jobs in bigger places, in supermarkets and so on, and although there is nothing wrong with that, it does not give them a taste of what they are hoping their future career might be.

We heard another good example of a veterinarian who takes on young people—and I raise this in terms of the purpose of the bill, to cut out age discrimination. That veterinarian takes on young people, after school, but can afford to pay only the minimum wage. The veterinarian cannot afford to pay them more than the minimum wage and does not want to pay them nothing, so takes them on at the minimum wage. A young person in that situation is rapt, quite frankly. The person is getting a go, and having an opportunity that would not arise otherwise.

These small businesses said that they knew the worth of what they are doing for young people. I wonder whether the bill has been as well-thought-out as it could have been in that respect.

I say to the member in the chair, Sue Bradford, that we understand some of the bigger problems, and perhaps why she has brought in the bill. We do not always agree with other members, but that is the nature of this place, and that is OK. We can argue about it. But I do have huge concerns about whether those smaller areas have been thought about—areas where there are not as many employment opportunities for those young people. Those small businesses are almost doing a community service by taking on these people. They are quite open about the fact they cannot afford to pay anything more than the minimum wage, but they know it may help those young people with career opportunities later on. That is really important.

I have personally had people write to me, and National has had many people meet with us. They range from veterinarians, to hairdressers, mechanics, panel beaters, and many others. Kids working for these businesses are looking for a bit of a break and a taste of the work, so they can see whether that area suits them.

Sue Moroney: Talk about clause 3.

PAULA BENNETT: I have been talking about the purpose clause, and we hear moans and groans from members on the other side of the Chamber, because that is what they like to do. I do not believe that any member of the House wants people not to be paid what they are worth. That is the truth of it.

Hansard: "20 free hour's hoax"

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:25:00 +1300

Speech in the House, Thursday 15 February 2007
"20 free hour's hoax"

Today was another example of a Government in pieces and a Government that does not get it. Its members know they simply cannot deliver on their promises. Let us talk about the fact that there will not be 20 free hours of early childhood education for thousands of 3 and 4-year-olds, and the Minister knew it before he announced the policy. Where do we start on this one? Through the Official Information Act we have Ministry of Education papers proving that the Minister knew that even if everything went perfectly with the Government's promise of 20 free hours, and even if all early childhood centres were bought in, there would still not be enough places for the 92,000 eligible children.

Colin King: Simple!

PAULA BENNETT: It is simple.

Colin King: It was a hoax.

PAULA BENNETT: It was a hoax. Even if everything went according to plan there would not be enough places. So the Minister cannot offer 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds on 1 July as promised; he simply does not have enough places.

Then, we get to the interesting stuff. The ministry's forecast predicted that centres covering 47 percent of the country had little or no capacity. So as the Minister went out on a promiseâ€”a promise of 20 free hours to all 3 and 4-year-oldsâ€”he knew that his own ministry's forecasts, his own papers, were saying the ministry would be unable to deliver. Its own documents predicted that 14 percent of centres in New Zealand would not offer 20 free hours. That is what the ministry predicted.

But it gets worse, and now we are starting to deal with the realities. The Early Childhood Council's survey has found that few centres intend to offer the 20 free hours. They are worried about the quality of the service they will deliver if they are to accept this low offer that they simply cannot deliver on. Thirty-one percent of centres said they definitely would not be offering the service. The Minister stood in the House today and said that there would be 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds. Yet again he is perpetuating a myth and imposing a cruel hoax on those parents who are relying on those free hours and needing them. Forty-six percent of early childhood centres are still undecided, and only 22 percent answered yes to the question of whether they will be offering free early childhood education in their centres. This one really got me. A centre in WhakatÄ?ne was quoted in the paper the other day as asking which centres in their right mind would say yes to a scheme, when they have to take money out of their own pockets just to make it run.

John Key was right to raise South Auckland as an area of particular concern. Fewer than a quarter of the early childhood centres in Manukau City said they would take up 20 free hours, whereas three-quarters of them have not said they would not. This is an area that we can look at and perhaps think that this is where the most need is for those 3 and 4-year-olds. Without a doubt there are more families struggling there than there are in many other places in the country. This is the place that will not be able to offer this service and deliver on a very ill-thought-out promise. The people are struggling. But then, perhaps the Prime Minister has not visited there lately. She might be a bit worried about bumping into Taito Phillip Field. She does not want to come across that sort of problem.

I want to talk a little now about why those centres are not taking up this offer, because it would be a great one for the Minister and the Government to run that they are not taking it up because of money in their own pocket, and everything else. But all we hear from the people in those centres is that they cannot maintain the quality of service with the amount that the Government is offering. For them it is about the quality they can deliver to those 3 and 4-year-olds. They are saying that the rates will not even cover costs, let alone allow for an upgrade in equipment, a pay rise for staff, or anything else. It will not even cover costs, and, as such, quality has to decline.

Then there is the administration of the systemâ€”but they turn round and say it will be a nightmare, with the huge costs associated in just administering it and making sure they can deliver it in that way. It is quite interesting to read about it in the papers as well, because the ministry and the Minister have no idea how they will monitor the $140 million they are putting into the scheme. The ministry went to the Minister and said: "We've looked at all of this and we've absolutely no idea how we can monitor where that $140 million is going, how it is going to be spent, and what we can do." What did the Minister say? The Minister must have said: "Let's wing it and hope that nothing much happens and no one notices, because at the end of the day we've made it up this far. We've made it up as we've gone along, and this is a great promise to put out there. We knew it would get us a few votes. We don't actually need to deliver too well on it. It's free, and free sounds good, so that will get us some votes, if we can even do it." The Minister has said he knew we could not do it. Then there was the question of how the $140 million going into the sector could be monitored. With the centres saying: "Well, we're really worried about the quality.", he says: "Nah, don't worry about it. Make it up as you go along, and we'll just wing it." Parents will say no to winging it. They deserve better, and their children deserve better. So there are no monitors, no measures, and the Minister does not seem to be taking any responsibility.

Then there is the doozyâ€”the one that Mr Key raised todayâ€”the optional charges, the volunteer payments. The Minister is desperate to simplify this issue, but it is not about a zoo visit. Some of it is not about whether the children go for a visit to the zoo, and whether the centres can do more. It is about actually delivering on the quality they currently have. Centres are saying they cannot deliver on the rate that is being offered and that they would need some sort of top-up payment from parents to make it work. The centres are saying: "However, there's not enough security of income to be relying on a volunteer payment, so as such we will not be taking up the scheme, or we will be cutting our services."

One centre rang the other day, and the woman I spoke to was just so distressed. She had been working in the industry for so long. She said: "I have worked it out that I would need to let three teachers go. If I am to accept this offer, I am going to have to let three teachers go and I am concerned about the effect that that will have on the quality of service that I offer to 3 and 4-year-olds and under." If they cannot do volunteer payments and they will not take up optional charges, what else might the centres do? The Minister suggested that they charge 1 and 2-year-olds more. They could make up for what they were not getting for the 3 and 4-year-olds by charging the 1 and 2-year-olds more. So one mum turns up in her car and puts her 1-year-old on her hip to walk around to the centre and another one turns up with a 3-year-old. They look at each other and that mother with the 1-year-old knows she is subsidising the one with the 3-year-old, just so that the Minister can try to cover the shortfall. There is no doubt about it and there are papers available under the Official Information Act stating that the Minister did that. It is all about quality, so accepting the offer is just not going to happen.

To recap quickly, we have volunteer payments that are not going to happen, high compliance costs, a drop in quality of care, and a Minister who cannot deliver on a promise.