Volume 656 Week 21 - Thursday 20 August 2009 
Volume 656 Week 21 - Thursday 20 August 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5749] 
Thursday 20 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Canada—Minister of State (Democratic Reform) 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Steven John Fletcher Minister of State (Democratic Reform) from the House of Commons in Canada is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the Minister be welcomed. 
Business Statement 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Members 
: Hooray! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am glad the Opposition appreciates the good job I have done so far. When the House resumes next week it is the Government’s intention to complete the estimates debate and make progress on the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill and the first readings of the bills on the Order Paper. On Wednesday 26 August the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill will be read a third time. This is a 3-hour debate and includes consideration of an Imprest Supply Bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition joins in welcoming the Hon Steven Fletcher to Parliament today. I thank the Associate Minister of Local Government who is Acting Leader of the House today for giving an indication of next week’s business. I inquire of him whether the Government is prepared to set aside some time next week to debate the Hon Mita Ririnui’s Electoral (Entrenchment of Maori Representation) Amendment Bill which might be of some use to the Government. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government will stay with the Government’s Order Paper. 
Questions to Ministers 
Surgery Elective—Improvements 
1. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improvements to elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports that show that in the 8 years between 2000-01 and 2007-08 the number of people getting elective surgery rose an average of 1432 a year or just 10021 over those 8 years. This increase was well behind population growth. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What reports has the Minister seen of the results for the 2008-09 year just ended? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have just received the preliminary results for 2008-09. They show that the number of people getting elective surgery in 2008-09 was 130216 patients a record increase of 12265 patients. This is the largest increase in the history of the public health system and it is higher in 1 year than it was under 8 years of the previous Labour Government with its having doubled the budget. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How can New Zealanders who are waiting for complex surgery have any faith in him when he has directed district health boards to improve discharge numbers which can be achieved by doing lots of minor surgery rather than to improve case-weighted numbers which give a true picture of the amount and type of surgery being carried out? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well what the member will find out of course is that more New Zealanders than ever before are getting elective surgery. It was her party’s history in Government that it doubled the budget and in 8 years it could not achieve what has happened in the last 12 months. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did he fail to answer my written question asking about discharges and case-weighted procedures due on 12 August until 1.57 today; was it because it shows that he is manipulating the figures or did he forget about the question in the same way that yesterday he forgot about the four draft Horn reports he had received and about the dinner that he had had with Murray Horn and his colleagues to discuss the recommendations—which was it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is clear from that question that the member does not appreciate the fact that what this Government is trying to do is to tidy up the mess that we inherited from her and her colleagues whereby despite a doubling of the health budget fewer New Zealanders got elective surgery. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Ruth Dyson’s question was about the answer she had received to a question about the Minister’s portfolio. He gave a political attack in response and went no way towards responding to the question she had put. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sympathise with the honourable member’s point of order in that the answer perhaps was not quite what the member would have wanted but then one has to accept that the question was also very long and some quite subjective stuff was inserted into it. It was a very long question with assertions and all sorts of things in it so I fear that I cannot assist the honourable member with a question like that. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does this increase of over 12000 compare with the Government’s goals for increasing elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: When the National Government came into power we made it clear that we had a goal of lifting the number of people getting elective surgery by an average of 4000 a year which was nearly treble the growth rate that there had been under the previous Labour Government in order to match population growth. In short the Government has delivered the total increase it had aimed for over those 3 years over the last period. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What were the increases in particular elective surgical specialties? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The preliminary information shows that there were increases in nearly all elective surgical specialties including orthopaedics ear nose and throat surgery plastic surgery and ophthalmology. But the largest increase was in general surgery which had actually decreased between 2000-01 and 2007-08 under Labour. In the year just completed the number of people getting general surgery rose to over 29000 which is an increase of around 11 percent. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the email trail between the Minister’s office and my office requesting an answer on time to the overdue question that I alluded to in my supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with the reported comments attributed to Hon Tau Henare on the issue of Maori representation in Auckland that “I believe the issue is too far-reaching and too important for a party presently sitting at 1 percent in the polls to decide alone.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes because under MMP no party alone has ever been able to decide the position on any issue that goes through this House in legislation. Issues require consultation and negotiation. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will there be Maori seats on the Auckland super-city council as the Maori Party demands or no Maori seats on the Auckland super-city council as the ACT Party demands or has the Prime Minister as the acclaimed deal maker found a compromise position which is something he hinted at recently? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are currently working through the arrangements relating to the reorganisation of Greater Auckland local governance and decisions will be made in due course. 
Hon Annette King 
: What compromise position is possible between two warring factions of the Prime Minister’s multiparty Government when his parliamentary colleague the Hon Tau Henare said there had been “a distinct lack of political will.” in trying to resolve the issue and the schism that has emerged among the minor parties propping up the Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The National-led Government has a strong relationship with its support partners. We speak with them regularly on all sorts of issues. They are certainly the first cabs off the rank. But differences of opinion are not unusual. I ask the member to look at the opinions of her own party members not only on this issue but also on her party leadership. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that if Rodney Hide does walk it will actually be a win-win for his Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is not the case at all. This Government is providing strong leadership for New Zealand and all the Ministers including Mr Hide are contributing to that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Prime Minister be allowing a free vote on Maori seats on the Auckland super-city council by National members of Parliament as proposed by the Hon Tau Henare in correspondence to the National Party caucus or is he afraid that the deep divisions seen between ACT and the Maori Party will also be exposed within his own caucus which has been tolerating Maori issues because of the deal stitched up with the Maori Party? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister is not afraid of anything—not the least of which is dealing with the party opposite which itself cannot actually articulate its own position on this issue. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the idea of having Maori seats on councils is a “foolish preference pushed by a few white liberal people on the council who feel guilt.” which is a statement made by the Hon Tony Ryall; if not has he asked Mr Ryall to keep his controversial views under control in order to preserve the stability and harmony with his Maori Party colleagues? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister has not asked the Hon Tony Ryall for his view on this issue because these discussions are ongoing. I assure the member that the Government is working with its support parties every day providing strong leadership for New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister consider the Maori Party to be more expendable when he is considering which side the National Party will take on Maori seats in the Auckland super-city council because they will not take National Party votes but the ACT Party stirring up the racial pot will? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister values the support of both the Maori Party and the ACT Party. He works constructively with them every day of the week. He is able to deal with both of those parties with the respect that they deserve and maybe that is why that member is sitting over there. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou. Can the Prime Minister confirm that if Rodney Hide persists with his rabid right-wing agenda he will be dancing alone with no stars no Crown cars and certainly no say over Aucklanders? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is well known that the ACT Party has strong views on this issue and we are currently working through the arrangements for the super-city. We are having discussions with support parties and we are not about to start conducting those discussions within the news media. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This might seem like a fine point but I think it is an important one. It is my understanding that senior Ministers are outside the country at the moment and that Mr Ryall is Acting Prime Minister. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Bill English is in the country. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sorry; if Bill English is here my point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to understand the point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sorry. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me apologise to you and the House. I have just had oral surgery. If I sound a bit funny it is not because I have a good lunch or anything like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure the House will be sympathetic. 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s one of Tony’s statistics. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Rodney Hide has the— 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have to say the health system has improved outstandingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will just have the question thanks Mr Hide. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
3.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Why did he reject Treasury advice that an appropriate 2020 target for New Zealand’s emissions would be 15 percent above 1990 levels rather than the 10 percent to 20 percent below 1990 levels that he announced last week? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Firstly I do not consider that a target of 15 percent above 1990 levels would have been internationally credible. The range amongst the targets tabled in negotiations by developed countries is minus 30 percent from Norway through to 0 percent by the United States. Positive 15 percent would be untenable. Secondly it would have been inconsistent with National’s election mandate. On climate change we campaigned on New Zealand not being a laggard nor being a world leader but doing our fair share. Our 10 percent to 20 percent target is consistent with that. Thirdly Treasury’s proposal was to exempt forestry from the target. It is the Government’s view that if we can get correct the parameters of the policy we can get significant plantation forests planted and can make a significant contribution towards New Zealand making the minus 10 percent to 20 percent target. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with the Treasury analysis that in choosing a 2020 emissions target he is imposing higher costs on New Zealand than those of our trading partners and indeed as Treasury shows causing three times the damage to New Zealand growth jobs and incomes compared with the damage caused by Australia’s target and 10 times the damage of the US’s target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The economic analysis that was provided noted that the cost to the New Zealand economy of our 10 percent to 20 percent target would be very similar to the cost of the Australian target of 15 percent to 25 percent. The reason I recommended a target range very similar in economic cost terms to Australia’s is that I think it is fair with the degree of integration between the New Zealand and Australian economies that we take a similar burden on this important issue. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen the comment from the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that New Zealand’s high conditional emissions target is “disappointing and inadequate” and why does the Government continue to discourage the development of low-carbon sectors in the New Zealand economy by viewing climate change policy as a trade-off between the environment and the economy a position that the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has labelled a “fallacy”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: With all due respect I disagree. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me put it in context. Do I think it is possible to reduce emissions significantly without cost? The frank answer is I do not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister still endorse the statement made by his colleague Tim Groser that the response to our climate change targets at Bonn was “uniformly positive”; if so how does he square it with the comments of Dr Pachauri the chief scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that New Zealand’s goals are “disappointing and inadequate” and that we “clearly need a much greater level of ambition”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I totally support it and it is consistent with the communications I have had with a range of countries about the target that New Zealand has set. I simply say to members opposite from both the Green Party and Labour that when they were in charge of this country our emissions grew by 14 percent. We could have tabled a much more ambitious target if in fact the previous Government had made some policy on climate change rather than talking big and doing absolutely nothing. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe e Te Mana Whakawa. What has been the trend in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions in recent years and how has it impacted on New Zealand’s ability to set an ambitious target for a post-2012 deal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand can reduce its net emissions by either reducing gross emissions or planting trees. In the 1990s New Zealand’s emissions grew by 10 percent but thankfully 600000 hectares of trees were planted. During the course of the last Government gross emissions grew by 14 percent and not only were no trees planted but there was significant deforestation. It is noteworthy that if the previous Government had over the same number of years constrained emissions to the same rate as had occurred in the 1990s—10 percent—and had planted trees at the same rate as in the 1990s New Zealand’s emissions today would be 14 percent less. Lo and behold members opposite now complain that we are not setting a more ambitious target. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister received any indication from any of his ministerial colleagues that they will resign if they do not get their way on this issue? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. 
Hekia Parata 
: Is it correct that New Zealand is the only country that is including agricultural emissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. Every country has to account for its agricultural emissions on the same basis as New Zealand is under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and also under the Kyoto Protocol. Countries are free to implement their own domestic policies to reduce emissions and most countries for which agriculture contributes a small proportion of their emissions have not included it. That means other sectors of the economy must carry the cost. The problem for New Zealand is that agriculture contributes such a large portion of our emissions that excluding it from our domestic policy puts a higher burden on the rest of the economy. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister agree with a former National Energy Minister the Hon Barry Brill who in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
commented on the Government’s targets for climate change that “The cost is appalling. Why aren’t we rioting in the streets? Even now we can’t afford decent healthcare education prisons so where we will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?”; or does he think that such costs are acceptable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been significant public debate about the level of cost. There are people who have argued it is $112 per week; I do not agree with that figure. The Government believes that a reasonable figure—and it comes from a study—is about 30 bucks a week for the average New Zealander. That is a significant amount but it is my view that it is the contribution that New Zealanders need to make in respect of climate change policy. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
4.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Will he resign as a Minister if Maori seats are included on the Auckland Council? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes. On 6 April Cabinet decided that there would not be separate Maori seats on the new Auckland Council. Subsequently on 3 June I met with the Prime Minister when he asked for my thoughts on reserved mana whenua seats. I advised him that it would be impossible for the ACT Party to vote for any race or tribal-based seats on the Auckland Council. We believe in one law for all every citizen having a vote of equal value and every position of political power being open to every citizen in fair and free elections. I advised the Prime Minister that I would not be able to introduce any bill that included separate Maori reserved seats for any group and that in such a case I would not be able to continue as Minister of Local Government. I also gave the Prime Minister my assurance that the ACT Party would abide by its confidence and supply agreement and would continue to support his excellent and honest Government which stands in marked contrast to the Government of the past 9 years. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has he seen any reports of the ACT Party leader who said in last year’s Television New Zealand election debate that he would support the entrenchment of Maori seats and did it influence his view now that Maori seats are fundamentally against the culture of New Zealand and the principles of the ACT Party? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I stand by that statement and no it did not influence my view. Before the last election the Hon Tariana Turia came to see me and explained that the seats if we were going to have Maori seats should be in the same position as every other seat in the House. On the basis that I believe everyone should be treated the same I agreed with her. 
Phil Twyford 
: What indication following the Cabinet decision in April that there would be no Maori seats has he received from the Prime Minister that National would change its mind and support Maori seats? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Prime Minister I think has been quite public in his consideration of the issue. It is also the case that the parliamentary select committee is considering the bill and the issue and has received submissions on it. Ultimately this will be a decision that the Government and Parliament make. I just wanted to be clear to the Prime Minister about my position so he would not have any surprises. It certainly was not a threat in any way. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does the Minister reconcile his statements in relation to the super-city: “I don’t sort of go in there and say it’s my way or the highway” and: “We live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament ultimately will make this decision.”; how does he reconcile those statements with his threat to throw his toys out of the cot if he does not get his own way on Maori seats? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Very easily in fact because I have never made threats or said it is my way or the highway. What I have said is that this is a very important principle to the ACT Party and as the leader of the ACT Party I could not be responsible for introducing legislation that ran so counter to ACT’s philosophy and principles and therefore if the Government or Parliament wanted to do it they would need to find another Minister of Local Government to introduce that legislation. That is not “my way or the highway”; that is a politician standing up for a principle of his party—something that the Labour Party members seem to know nothing of. 
Phil Twyford 
: Did the Minister or anyone in his office leak or authorise the leak of Tau Henare’s email in order to grandstand and demonstrate that a party polling at 1 percent can tell the Government what to do? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I did not see the email until after TV3 had it; so no that was not possible. 
Afghanistan—Women’s Rights 
5.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Has he received any advice on whether a law curtailing women’s rights in Afghanistan has been “brought into line with the expectations of the international community” as he was promised by Hamid Karzai; if so what was that advice? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I have received no formal advice; commentary suggests there may have been some changes to the law. However officials are seeking an official translation of that law as it has been legislated before assessing what changes have been made. 
Keith Locke 
: What action will New Zealand take should Hamid Karzai’s assurance to the Minister on women’s rights turn out to be false—for example that men are still to be legally permitted to starve their wives if denied sex? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is not prepared to jump to conclusions about whether the President has done something he indicated he would not do. We are not alone in this matter. New Zealand has expressed the same concerns as the rest of the international community and if we find those concerns remain we will consult our international partners over what appropriate steps ought to be taken. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Did the Minister seek advice on the possible impact on existing social and economic projects—including those affecting women—in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan province following this Government’s decision to phase out the highly regarded and very successful provincial reconstruction work being done by New Zealand personnel in that province? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not in a position to answer that question. I undertake to get back to the member as soon as I can obtain some advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
Keith Locke 
: What assurance did the Minister get from the Afghan Government about the humane treatment of any prisoners handed over by New Zealand military personnel and is he confident that any such assurance would be kept should the prisoners be handed over to Afghan forces controlled by brutal warlords such as Rashid Dostum? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not in a position to answer either of those questions. Again I undertake to get back to the member as soon as I have been briefed on the particular matter concerning that warlord. 
Keith Locke 
: Why does the Minister think that our SAS soldiers should risk their lives to defend a hopelessly corrupt administration which is currently renewing its mandate through an obviously fraudulent election and should not the Minister be sufficiently briefed by what has been in the papers over the last 2 or 3 days? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister have given answers to those questions; I have nothing to add. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to say that answers have been given and we do not know where and how etc. is surely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect on the question he asked. Rather than it being a question the member made a string of allegations about the situation in Afghanistan which may or may not be correct. But given the nature of the question it is a bit rich then to expect the Minister to answer it in any particular way. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Representation on Auckland Council 
6.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he stand by his statement: “It’s definitely a sort of inherent sort of institutionalised racism in that you’ve accepted one way of doing things and not respected another cultural norm. They have no right to do that and we will oppose that. I’ll oppose that as a Minister of New Zealand’s Government” and does he think that opposition to the Maori seats on the Auckland City Council is an example of “institutionalised racism”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Yes and no. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Will the Minister of Maori Affairs resign if the Government decides to exclude Maori seats from the Auckland Council or is he less passionate and principled about the issue than the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide who has said bluntly that if the Government includes Maori seats he will hand in his ministerial warrant? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples is passionate and competent and he believes strongly in the positions that he advances. He very much enjoys working with the National-led Government on those issues. 
Rahui Katene 
: Why does the Minister think that Maori representation on the Auckland Council is important? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister’s view is that the guaranteed representation for either mana whenua or Maori is a necessary step to ensure that their voices are heard in Auckland city decision making. It is the Minister’s opinion that existing legislative provisions under the Local Electoral Act have proven to be ineffective in providing for Maori representation at the decision-making table. He also considers that there is a sound Treaty basis for this level of representation which recognises the special place of mana whenua and Maori in a 21st century New Zealand. 
Rahui Katene 
: How does the Minister define “institutional racism” and how can it be addressed in local government? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Institutional racism could be defined as the collective failure of an organisation to provide equitable opportunities benefits or advantages to different racial or ethnic groups of a society by neglecting to acknowledge that there are different cultural ways of being and doing that can and should be provided for. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement: “The agreement that the Maori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. … and to not talk behind each other’s backs. We have an open honest policy. … and at all times there are no surprises”; if so can the Minister confirm that he and his colleagues knew about the email and were not surprised at all to find out about the backroom decision-making process of ACT and National? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister can confirm that the Maori Party has a very open and honest relationship with the National-led Government. The Minister of Maori Affairs has a very good open and constructive relationship with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for example who is trying to make up for the shocking performance of the previous Government. They enjoy working together. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why is the retention of the Minister’s own Maori seat a significant enough issue to be a bottom line in the Maori Party’s confidence and supply agreement with National but ensuring Maori representation in our communities is not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The question is a nonsense. The Minister of Maori Affairs has fought and continues to fight very strongly on issues of Maori representation. In no way can his passionate stand on those principles derogate from his equally strong position about the importance of his own seat. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your input. You have maintained a high level of standards. It is really both unnecessary and deprecating for the Minister to try to characterise this question which is very serious to the Maori community as being either foolish or stupid. I invite you to correct him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the point the honourable member has raised. I ask Ministers not to commence answers to questions with any kind of attack or put-down. Obviously when the question is shaped in such a way that the Minister feels it contains something of a put-down then it invites a bit of a response. But I ask Ministers to avoid initiating an answer in that manner. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Minister think that the following statement represents institutionalised racism: Maori seats on councils are a foolish preference pushed by a few white liberal people on the council who feel guilt? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Many statements have been made both for and against the position of Maori representation on the Auckland City Council. Some are more colourful than others. The Minister certainly would not rush to judgment about institutionalised racism on the basis of one statement. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What is more mana-enhancing: having a flag blowing in the wind on the Auckland Harbour Bridge once a year or ensuring Maori representation in our largest city? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Both are equally passionate positions that the Minister of Maori Affairs contends for. An equally mana-enhancing matter would be involvement in a National-led Government led by Prime Minister John Key. 
Accident Compensation—Cost of Physiotherapy 
7.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What has been the cost to ACC levy payers of the endorsed provider network contract for physiotherapists providing for free consultations since 2004 and what advice has he received on the rehabilitation benefits of this expenditure? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The cost of the free physiotherapists policy on levy payers has been estimated at $244 million. This is the cost of physios over and above what the cost would have been if the previous policy had been maintained. I am advised that there has been no identifiable rehabilitation benefit despite increasing the number of treatments by 1 million. The increase in the number of treatments was greatest in high socio-economic areas like Remuera and Fendalton. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the advice given to the then Government when the endorsed provider network funding model was suggested? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have seen a briefing paper that the then Minister for ACC the Hon Ruth Dyson received in February 2003 on this policy. It advised her that there was no proof regarding the assertion that having free physios would result in earlier return to independence for patients. The paper further states that neither Treasury nor the Department of Labour supported the initiative. The Minister and the Government ignored that advice out of an obsession with complying with International Labour Organization principles and as a result wasted $244 million of levy payers’ money. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: When did the physio costs start to blow out; and what steps were taken in response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The cost of free physios was estimated to be $9 million per year. In the first year it cost $18 million and it subsequently blew out to over $100 million. The indictment on the previous Government is that it not only ignored officials’ advice with the initial policy but did not review it when the cost of the policy ballooned out of control. Sadly levy payers are left with a cost of $244 million for Ruth Dyson’s expensive social experiment. 
Immigration Investigation—Department of Labour Interview 
8.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did he advise the House yesterday that a planned interview between the Department of Labour and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was not called off following the intervention of his political adviser? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Because the decision not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the Minister advising the House that the  
New Zealand Herald  
report on 19 June that “the Department of Labour called off a planned interview with the Herald about the investigation after Dr Coleman’s ministerial adviser James Watson intervened.” is factually wrong? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I stand by my answer that the decision for the interview not to proceed was the Department of Labour’s to take. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to that question and answer. It was a very direct question which was in the end not addressed by the Minister. It went to the timing of the decision and saying he stood by a previous answer to a different question—and it was a different question in my view—is not sufficient. 
Hon John Carter 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further assistance on this matter. I respect that the point of order was raised in perfectly good faith. It would be my judgment that the Minister is being very careful not to accuse another party of being wrong on something but by the answer he has given he has given a very clear answer from his perspective to what the member was asking for. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did his officials tell the  
New Zealand Herald  
last month that they were not making inquiries again into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam when only 1 week before on the morning of Thursday 17 July at a Queen Street venue two individuals were interviewed at length by an experienced immigration investigator? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I cannot be responsible for their actions after the fact. The member will have to address that question to the department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the original investigation was closed because of “insufficient evidence” might a contributing cause of that insufficient evidence have been the decision not to send an experienced immigration investigator from New Zealand to India last December to interview the original complainant and instead to deploy an inexperienced investigator? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As the member knows I am not responsible for the level of expertise in terms of the investigator delegated to the inquiry. The inquiry is purely—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A serious question has been asked and the House should hear the answer. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The inquiry is purely a matter of responsibility for the Department of Labour as the member well knows. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam and what advice if any did he offer his officials at that time? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The advice I have consistently given throughout this matter is that the member should be treated like any member of the public and that if any information came to light for the consideration of the department it should proceed to investigate it just as it would for any member of the public. So if that member over there has information to hand over I suggest he does so. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Pete Hodgson’s supplementary question asked when the Minister had read a report. Nothing in the answer went anywhere near to giving information to the House about when he had read the report about this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but if I heard the Hon Pete Hodgson correctly he went on to ask what advice the Minister had given his department in respect of the matter. I think the Minister answered pretty clearly and comprehensively in terms of the advice he has given to his department. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. My question read as follows: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation etc.? I could read it all out if you wish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the “etc.” bit that is relevant. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Then please allow me to continue: when did he first read the report into the first failed investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi’s alleged involvement in an immigration scam and what advice if any did he offer officials at that time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the Minister did answer that supplementary question. He is obliged to answer only one part of that two-part question and he chose to answer the part about the advice he has given his department on the matter. I think he was very clear with the House as to the advice he has given his department on that matter. I cannot assist the honourable member more. If he had stopped his question halfway through he might have been able to get more specific information about the first part relating to when the Minister read the report. But because the question contained those two parts the Minister was perfectly entitled to answer the second part and I think he did so absolutely fairly. 
Border Control—Passenger Processing 
9.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What steps is the Government taking to streamline border processes for passengers? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Today the Prime Minister announced that it will become faster and easier to travel between Australia and New Zealand through the introduction of SmartGate. It is an automated passenger processing system giving New Zealand and Australian e-passport - holders the option to process themselves through customs and immigration using biometric technology. It will be introduced in Auckland in December this year with Wellington and Christchurch to follow by mid-2010. SmartGate makes border processing more efficient meaning reduced queue times for travellers while maintaining existing border security standards. 
Simon Bridges 
: What will SmartGate mean for the traveller? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The technology will streamline trans-Tasman passenger clearance processes. It will reduce the amount of queuing throughout departure and arrival lounges and will give visitors a very positive first impression of New Zealand—a country led by an incredibly dynamic Prime Minister ably assisted by an innovative Minister of Customs. 
Simon Bridges 
: Who can use SmartGate? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: SmartGate is totally optional. Anyone travelling to New Zealand holding an Australian or New Zealand e-passport who is over the age of 18 can use it. 
Health Care—Policy 
10.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the previous Government quietly cut $150 million from Vote Health and left district health boards delivering $160 million of health services that were not funded yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Murray Horn report that preventing illness may not be cost-effective and is that why funding for programmes like Let’s Beat Diabetes has been cut? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The ministerial review group report is out for public feedback. I know that New Zealanders would be concerned about any such changes to policy and I hope the member expressed concern when her bench mate Annette King cut $110 million out of health services for reprioritisation before the last election. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What recent feedback has the Minister had in relation to progressing his goal of more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the most exciting piece of news on how we are improving services for New Zealanders was the record number of elective surgeries performed for New Zealanders in the last 6 months—the biggest single increase in that period of time. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Murray Horn report that freezing the wages of all staff in the health sector is necessary and how will that freeze assist to deliver National’s promise of closing the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think that quote is in the ministerial review group report; I cannot recall reading that quote. I have to say that it is no secret that restraint is needed in the State services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with Murray Horn’s saying that helping people to live longer may not be cost-effective? Is he now telling older New Zealanders that it is better and more convenient for them to die sooner? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have made it absolutely clear that this Government is determined to improve health services for all New Zealanders and we will not allow preference for working New Zealanders over retired or non-working New Zealanders. This Government takes seriously its responsibility to protect and improve the New Zealand public health service. 
Civil Defence—Disaster Preparedness 
11.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What steps is the Government taking to help people be better prepared for disasters? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Last week I launched an updated resource to help children schools and families be better prepared for disaster. Called What’s the Plan Stan? the resource helps children to understand and prepare for disasters. What’s the Plan Stan? has been distributed to all primary and intermediate schools. As well as being a teaching resource it is also designed to help schools develop their own emergency plans. A third purpose is to provide information that families can use to plan for emergencies at home and in their communities. 
Louise Upston 
: What other initiatives are under way to improve disaster response and preparedness? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: What’s the Plan Stan? builds on the previous good work done by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. All members will be aware of the Get Ready Get Thru education programme which has been run since 2006 to raise New Zealand’s level of readiness. In addition I have today released a new set of guidelines to assess damage to buildings in events such as earthquakes and explosions. [ 
Interruption 
] The Opposition might not want to take matters of civil defence seriously but this Government does. The guidelines were developed by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering and they will help councils give homeowners an assurance and consistency after such events. For example we are taking a leaf out of the sporting field and we have these signs which we will ask local government bodies to use consistently. Where a house or a building is unsafe it will get a red card stating that it is unsafe. Where it is under investigation or restricted use we have a yellow card. Where it has been inspected and it is safe we have a green card. It is something that we believe even the Opposition will be able to understand. 
Louise Upston 
: What is the state of civil defence preparedness in New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The state of preparedness in New Zealand is at a very high level. The structure that we have in New Zealand is one that we are very proud of. It was I must say developed under the previous administration and it is a world leader. There are some strengths and weaknesses in it. We are developing the strengths and we are working with local government across the country. There is work to be done in the communities but this country is in a good state with regard to civil defence. 
Telecom New Zealand—Employment Contract Advice 
12.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he his office or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet contacted Telecom New Zealand Ltd to seek any information on its proposed maintenance contracting arrangement with Australian-based company Visionstream; if so what was the substance of any such discussions? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: No. 
Clare Curran 
: Why has he failed to seek any assurance from Telecom that its attempt to remove employment conditions from its workforce will not interfere with the Government’s broadband commitments? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Prime Minister is advised that this is an issue of contracts between private companies and it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene. Telecom is a private company having been privatised by a Labour Government that included Phil Goff and Annette King. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he stand by his election commitments to deliver ultra-fast broadband; if so why has his Government taken no serious action to ensure that this dispute does not affect Telecom’s reputation as an efficient customer-focused communications provider and a reputable corporate citizen? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I know that the Prime Minister appreciates that changes in contract arrangements can be stressful and unsettling for the engineers involved but this is a matter between a private company and its employees. 
Clare Curran 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is my advice that the Labour Party has used its allocation of supplementary questions today. 
Question Time 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a slightly unusual point of order. Given the no doubt very busy schedule this afternoon of the Acting Prime Minister Bill English I wonder whether he could give us an indication as to what time he will come down here to correct today’s answers to questions given by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The senior Opposition whip should not indulge in that behaviour. I will take it as having been done in good humour but he is not to do it again. 
Questions to Members 
Health Promotion in Relation to Children Briefing—Public Submissions 
1. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: Will the Health Committee be seeking public submissions on the briefing on health promotion disease and injury prevention in relation to children? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee): 
 That is a matter for the committee to decide. It has not considered the matter yet. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the forward programme of the committee leave open the possibility of hearing submissions as part of any legislation to implement the Horn report? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The forward programming of any committee leaves it open for the committee to take a whole variety of actions. Hearing such submissions could be one of them. 
Primary Health Care Strategy Report—Public Submissions 
2. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: Will the Health Committee be seeking public submissions on the report from the Controller and Auditor-General  
Ministry of Health: Monitoring the Progress of the Primary Health Care Strategy 
? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee): 
 That is a matter for the committee to decide. It has not considered the matter yet. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If no legislation is needed to implement the Horn report will the committee hear open public submissions on the proposal to gut the Ministry of Health and set up the new bureaucracy the national health board? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I point out to the Hon Ruth Dyson that a supplementary question must relate to an item of business before the committee not to an item that may possibly at some future stage come before the committee. I will give her a chance to reword her supplementary question. It needs to come within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the committee’s forward programme allow it to hear open public submissions on implementation of the Horn report if no legislation is required to implement the report? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As I said before any committee’s forward programme can allow a whole spectrum of activities to take place. When I asked the member yesterday whether she knew of any ministerial reviews that had subsequently led to a select committee inquiry she was unable to think of any such precedent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair of a committee should not bring that material into an answer either. 
Appointments 
Controller and Auditor-General 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Leader of the House) 
:  
I move  
That pursuant to section 7(2) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Lynette Diana Provost of Upper Hutt as Controller and Auditor-General for a term of seven years. 
 The House has been asked to recommend the appointment of Lyn Provost as Controller and Auditor-General following a report from the Officers of Parliament Committee. The committee carried out an extensive recruitment process. 
Officers of Parliament are unusual in that they are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House and are interviewed for the job by a select committee. The Officers of Parliament Committee carried out a thorough search for the best candidate for the role. I understand that the committee made its selection from a strong field of candidates after interviewing them and having a panel of technical experts interview them. The role of the Auditor-General is not an easy one. 
Parliament seeks independent assurance that public sector organisations are operating in accordance with Parliament’s intentions and are accounting properly for their performance. There is also a need for independent assurance of local government. Local authorities are accountable to the public for their activities. As an Officer of Parliament the Auditor-General provides independent assurance to the Parliament and to the public. 
The Auditor-General operates independently of the Government and as an Officer of Parliament the person in the role must have very high standards of integrity and judgment. In Lyn Provost we have such a person. She is currently a deputy police commissioner a position she has held for the past 8 years. As deputy commissioner she has been responsible for six police districts as well as for leading finance planning information technology and strategy within the police. Prior to taking her role with the police she was acting chief executive at Archives New Zealand. Ms Provost also has experience as Assistant Controller and Auditor-General. 
As is customary with appointments of Officers of Parliament all political parties in the House have been consulted on the appointment. They unanimously agree to it. The appointment is for one term of 7 years which is the maximum term the Public Audit Act 2001 allows. I am pleased to move Lyn Provost’s appointment as Auditor-General. She goes to lead an organisation that has a great deal of interaction with Parliament and is vital to the effective functioning of our system of Government. I commend her appointment to the House. 
Before I conclude I will also make a comment about the retiring Auditor-General Kevin Brady. He took up the position of Controller and Auditor-General on 6 May 2002. He joined the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in 1971 and worked in Napier Palmerston North Timaru and Wellington audit offices before being appointed to the role of Assistant Auditor-General Local Government in 1990. 
 The public functions and duties of the Controller and Auditor-General are set out in the Public Audit Act 2001. In summary they are to provide an assurance to Parliament that public entities are operating effectively efficiently and appropriately using public funds wisely and reporting their performance. Kevin is also a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and holds a Master of Public Policy degree from Victoria University. We wish him well in his retirement. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the accuracy of the record of this House I just correct the Minister in what was a very good speech. Our new—once this House has agreed—Auditor-General’s surname is pronounced “Pro-vo”. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call today as a member of the Officers of Parliament Committee which is one of those committees of Parliament that a lot of people around New Zealand do not know a lot about. It considers matters as significant as the appointment of the Controller and Auditor-General which has been a very interesting process for us to be part of in a bipartisan way. As a committee we extend our sincere congratulations to Lyn Provost on her appointment particularly as she has had a wonderful career as has been mentioned as a deputy police commissioner working in Archives New Zealand and just recently as the Assistant Controller in the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
Lyn Provost is very deserving of this role and she joins a wonderful group of women in New Zealand ranked in top positions in this country. We can think of people like Dame Silvia Cartwright our first woman Governor-General; Dame Sian Elias our first woman Chief Justice; former Prime Ministers Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark; and Margaret Wilson our first woman Speaker of the House. We have some women functioning at a very high level in the Public Service and it is aspirational for women across New Zealand to see that we now have a Controller and Auditor-General who is a woman. We in Labour are really proud of that and we see that this gives a wonderful message to all women in New Zealand that if they aim high train well and are well educated they too can make such a position. I am sure Lyn Provost never imagined that one day she would reach such a position in this country. 
We wish Lyn well in her role which is a very important role. It is a role that requires the trust of all parties in the House and a great deal of confidence that she is carrying out the role of Controller and Auditor-General fairly equitably and with a professional hand in terms of managing the work programme for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General which we are involved with on a day-to-day basis at various select committees. 
I have just a sad note though: here is Lyn Provost who has achieved this wonderful appointment that we will be confirming next week in the House at the same time as the Government has received a report from the Human Rights Commission that confirms that chief executives of Government departments must work to overcome pay equity issues in their organisations. I congratulate our spokesperson on women’s affairs Sue Moroney who for the Opposition benches is fighting the good fight with a Government that says “Women can make it. We don’t believe in pay equity. We don’t believe in pay equity investigations for school support workers social workers and Child Youth and Family workers.” I think that is really very sad when 120000 women in New Zealand are at the moment undertaking pay equity reviews to see whether we can close that gender pay gap. It may be an item that we put on the Department of Labour work programme for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General for that office to look at the outcome of scrapping those pay reviews. I am sure that with Lyn Provost now in such an important role through her framework and lenses she will be looking at the work programme of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General in a different way. 
We congratulate Lyn Provost. I thoroughly enjoyed working on this committee and it was great to see the confidence that all members of the committee had in the process which was very fairly followed with due diligence. I am very confident that Lyn will undertake this role to the very best of her ability; that can be nothing but good for the people of New Zealand. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of the Green Party to support the appointment of Lyn Provost as Controller and Auditor-General. It is seldom understood outside Parliament—and sometimes not even inside Parliament—that the Controller and Auditor-General is not a Government functionary but reports to Parliament. 
The role of Officers of Parliament is a critical part of our democracy. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the Ombudsmen and the Controller and Auditor-General play a key role in keeping Government agencies accountable. All of us on many occasions have had cause to turn to the Officers of Parliament in an attempt to make certain parts of Government accountable to the people and to Parliament. The Green Party welcomes Ms Provost to the position. 
One of the very interesting aspects that the Auditor-General is grappling with at the moment are the International Financial Reporting Standards that have appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and various other places. People may assume that financial reporting standards are a settled issue. In fact until very recently I myself assumed that the standards for the reporting of financial matters were a settled matter and that there was a set of international standards that were well and truly established and settled but that is not the case. 
One of the issues that the previous Auditor-General Kevin Brady who did a great job has been grappling with is what we do about International Financial Reporting Standards that do not work for the public sector. Canada has developed a set of reporting standards around the public sector. A different set of reporting standards I think holds a lot of promise for its application to the New Zealand public sector. 
 I hope that Lyn Provost in her new role along with other Government agencies can give some attention to this matter so that we have a set of reporting standards and financial reporting standards that make sense for the public sector. The International Financial Reporting Standards make sense for large banks large financial institutions and large businesses and corporations but do not necessarily make a lot of sense for the public sector. They certainly do not make a lot of sense for the non-governmental organisations sector which needs its own set of reporting standards and financial reporting standards. 
I welcome Lyn Provost to the job. I hope she enjoys it and I put that as one of the challenges that are now on her plate. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the appointment of Lyn Provost as the new Controller and Auditor-General. Along with Mr Foss Mr Robertson and the Hon Sir Roger Douglas I was part of the Officers of Parliament Committee that conducted the interviews for the position. I must say in mild contradiction to Steve Chadwick who said she believed Ms Provost could not have imagined ever becoming the Auditor-General that one of the things Ms Provost said during the course of her interview—and I am sure I am not breaching confidence—was that very early in her career she set herself the goal of becoming New Zealand’s first woman Auditor-General. I am delighted that by confirming her in the role today we have achieved that goal for her. 
I have no doubt Lyn Provost will be an outstanding Auditor-General. She comes with a great background. She took on the role of Deputy Commissioner of Police as a civilian at a time when the police were under considerable stress and strain. She then brought together the new Policing Act that Parliament passed during the term of the previous Government and she oversaw the whole change in police culture that arose as a result of certain matters arising from the Bazley report. That was no mean feat. On that basis alone I think she is more than suitably qualified to take on the new and challenging role of Auditor-General. 
She comes to the role at time when there is a need for fresh leadership within the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. I have been concerned over the last couple of years at what I regard as an increasingly scattergun approach by the Audit Office to some of the functions it carries out. We have seen a number of reviews undertaken on a range of issues from defence procurement to medicine procurement to other specialist areas of Government activity where in my view the office has gone well beyond its brief of being a financial reporter. It has started to report on the way in which those practices are carried out often with very limited consultation with the organisations concerned. For instance in the area of local government there has been a longstanding technical debate about the treatment of depreciation. The office has declined to become involved in that issue yet it affects a whole range of local government operations across New Zealand. Therefore one of the things I think the new Auditor-General has to focus on is getting back to the core business of making sure that the office conducts good value-for-money audits and that it does a financial auditing role in the proper sense. I have some sympathy with the view that Dr Norman expressed about International Financial Reporting Standards and ensuring that we develop standards that are understandable and compatible with business practice in New Zealand. 
All of those are challenges for the new Auditor-General. In Lyn Provost we have an outstanding new appointee and I wish her well in the role. I look forward to her leadership and along with other members of this Parliament I look forward to engaging with her in her new role. I offer my congratulations and best wishes to her as she takes up this appointment. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party is pleased to take a call in supporting the appointment of Lyn Provost to the role of Controller and Auditor-General. One of the most insightful reflections of the previous Controller and Auditor-General Kevin Brady was that it is not a popularity poll type of job—he should know. During his reign the Controller and Auditor-General launched nearly 200 inquiries including high-profile inquiries into the controversial $18 million public relations campaign spent by Labour on Working for Families and various probes into political parties including our friends in ACT and the Greens. Of course the most explosive of these was when he captured the nation’s interest in the 2006 report into election spending. 
Lyn Provost has big footprints to fill. Mrs Provost has the support of the House in stepping up to the challenge. The release from the Speaker of the House said it all: “It is vital that the person appointed to this position has impeccable integrity and sound judgment”. But Mrs Provost also has a reputation for bringing in a fresh breath of air to an organisation and its functions. She was not only the first woman to be appointed Deputy Commissioner of Police; she was also the first non-sworn person to be given the job. Both of those capacities gave her a unique edge in the leadership position. 
Her focus on becoming the second in command in the police force was to make sure that every time a member of the public had contact with the police it was a positive experience. The Maori Party of course would have no debate with that. There is now more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the police perceptions of Maori were certainly worthy of review. But she has also brought her vision to many other areas of the Public Service including a role as acting chief executive of Archives New Zealand and senior manager at the State Services Commission. The breadth of her experience will be a huge asset for the perspectives she will bring to the role of Controller and Auditor-General. 
The Maori Party has always placed great confidence in the capacity of the Controller and Auditor-General to provide an independent view—the type of uncompromising approach to auditing for outcomes beyond reproach. We need leadership that is fearless frank and firm if we are to invest in the type of accountability and transparency that the system demands. In our Maori Party policy we have called on the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to report annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Maori Pacific refugee and migrant communities as well as young people. We believe that the role requires officers of Parliament who can be brave who can be honourable and who can be independent. These qualities are essential to understand whether the interventions that the Government pursues are making the difference in terms of outcomes. We also would like to see the office report annually on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Maori while at the same time profiling good practice. It may well be the perfect time for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to take a brave new look at institutional racism as was very evident in question time today. 
 The presence operation and effect of institutional racism was highlighted in New Zealand in 1986 with the publication of  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak  
which is a report by the ministerial advisory committee on the Maori perspective for the then Department of Social Welfare. The report describes the differences between Maori and non-Maori clients across a range of indicators as a “picture of crisis proportions” recommending significant changes to the policies and practices of Government agencies with the objective to “eliminate deprivation and alienation”. The substantive recommendations of the report appear to have been ignored and provide therefore a perfect opportunity for the new Auditor-General to look critically at whether the “picture of crisis proportions” is still prevalent in our agencies of the State. 
For 20 years on the picture across many indicators is either unchanged or more dire than in 1986 such as the differences between Maori and non-Maori prison admissions or life expectancy respectively. The Maori Party will be introducing a member’s bill at the first available opportunity to eliminate the presence operation and effects of institutional racism. But in the period between the time that the legislation appears and now we welcome the opportunity for the new Auditor-General to hit the ground running with an inquiry to ascertain the extent to which Government departments and their contracted service providers are eliminating institutional racism. The Maori Party welcomes Mrs Provost to the position and wishes her every success in demonstrating impeccable integrity and sound judgment in the formidable tasks ahead. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the motion. National supports the motion that Mrs Lyn Provost be the new Controller and Auditor-General. 
First of all and as previous speakers have noted I wish to acknowledge other members of the Officers of Parliament Committee of which I am a member and the chair of the subcommittee that was put in charge of this process of recommending this appointment to Mr Speaker. I also wish to thank the independent advisers and the officials who assisted us greatly—there was quite a large group of people. They made our job a bit easier at the end of the day with their advice and we are thankful to them. 
I acknowledge and pay tribute to the outgoing Controller and Auditor-General Mr Kevin Brady. Mr Brady was born in Oamaru and he joined the Audit Office in 1971. He has been in the system for quite some time and has worked in various roles with the Audit Office. In the 1980s he was a regional director with the Audit Office in Wellington and in Palmerston North. He was appointed Assistant Auditor-General in 1988. He was appointed Deputy Controller and Auditor-General in February 2000 and was appointed Controller and Auditor-General in 2002. Mr Brady was responsible for several major reports on behalf of the office. 
Mr Brady’s efforts in the local government area were recognised in 1996 when he was made a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Mr Brady also received the Richard Ratliff Award in 2006 which was awarded by the Institute of Internal Auditors New Zealand for his outstanding contribution to the promotion and practice of internal auditing. He has been an executive member of the South Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions and has in that role coordinated major trainee programmes for auditors from various South Pacific countries. 
The Auditor-General engages with the committees of this Parliament. Mostly the Audit Office engages with the Finance and Expenditure Committee of which I have been a member since 2005 and I am now chair of that committee in this new Parliament. I acknowledge Mr Brady and on behalf of the other members of the committee in the previous Parliament and in this one I am sure I thank him for the way in which he has engaged himself and his tight leadership team with the direction the clarity the assistance and even the pointers in many instances that he has given our committee on various issues the office has looked at or perhaps felt it necessary that they should be pursued further. 
An earlier speaker picked up on a bit of a hobby horse of the retiring Controller and Auditor-General—his interest in the International Financial Reporting Standards. A report was tabled today by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I am sure Mr Brady will be pleased to know that the committee is continuing to examine that issue and has picked up the Audit Office’s most recent report on the appropriateness of those International Financial Reporting Standards to some of New Zealand’s public sector accounting reporting areas. 
I am sure that New Zealand taxpayers and New Zealand citizens would also join me in thanking Mr Brady and his office for their constant vigilance of the assets of the Government and of central and local government processes and for their accountability and responsibility for the wealth of the citizens of New Zealand of which they are in charge. I am also confident that the new Controller and Auditor-General Mrs Lyn Provost will continue that very very high standard. I look forward to seeing the work programmes that she may be picking up on continuing or starting. I say that quite genuinely. I am looking forward as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of this Government and of Parliament to working with Mrs Provost when we engage in official business. 
The Officers of Parliament Committee which I am a member of has recommended Mrs Lyn Provost for the position of Controller and Auditor-General. She is currently the Deputy Commissioner of Police in the resource management area which is a position she has held for the past 8 years. I am sure that the Minister of Police will not mind my saying that she will be sorely missed from the New Zealand Police in respect of the value she has added the work she has done and some of the new standards that she has set. 
Other speakers have touched on some of the things that Mrs Provost has been responsible for in the New Zealand Police. I would just like to touch on those also. Most important she has restored some confidence in the ability of many of the central agencies of the police to manage extensive information and communications technology systems after there were some issues with the previous computer system and she was responsible for the seamless migration from the old Wanganui law enforcement system to a new national intelligence application. Mrs Provost has overseen the digital radio project to replace the police’s outgoing and ageing analog radio system. 
 Mrs Provost has played a significant part in the initial police response to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct by mobilising the team to effectively and efficiently stocktake and analyse many years’ worth of historical files and to provide the commission with coherent and timely responses to its inquiries. Mrs Provost has also been responsible for leading a radical overhaul of the 50-year-old Police Act and for sponsoring the introduction of a code of conduct for all staff. She was also responsible for the introduction of a leadership development framework to grow a new generation of police leaders. I think it goes without saying that with that small track record of those few items I have mentioned the House can have much confidence in the direction and standards that Mrs Provost will bring to her new role. 
Prior to being Deputy Commissioner of Police Mrs Provost held various roles in the public sector. She was Acting Chief Executive of Archives New Zealand branch manager of the State Services Commission and Assistant Controller and Auditor-General from 1993 to 1995. As Minister Dunne noted earlier it was always an ambition of hers to one day become the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand. That dream of hers has come to pass and I am very pleased to have had a role in making that happen assuming that the House votes in favour of the motion. 
The role of Auditor-General is very very important. The independence of the Auditor-General is one of the key pillars of our democracy. 
The Auditor-General like all Public Service entities and Officers of Parliament is required by the Public Finance Act 1989 to present to the House an annual report at the end of each financial year. The annual report enables the Auditor-General to explain to Parliament and to the public what he or she has done and how well the Audit Office has performed during the year. It includes financial and non-financial information and discusses the extent to which the office has achieved its goals for that year. 
With this interface with the House in our process once the annual report of the Controller and Auditor-General is presented to the House the financial review of the office stands referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The select committee examines the performance and operations of the office over the previous financial year and reports back to the House. During the Budget process the select committee also examines the estimates of Vote Audit. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The magpie is a hoha. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: That gentleman who is wearing a somewhat short tie might stand and make some comments in a minute. Just quietly I notice he is wearing a black and white tie so he is supporting the Magpies. 
The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General has a very serious and important role. It sets policy and standards undertakes strategic audit planning appoints auditors and oversees their performance undertakes performance audits authorises approvals under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 and responds to inquiries from ratepayers taxpayers and members of Parliament. The office is very very accessible to members of the public and to this House. I endorse the motion and look forward to working with Mrs Provost as the new Controller and Auditor-General. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Motion agreed to. 
Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: I move  
That the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
The bill amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. It is important legislation as it will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. That annex which is commonly known as the liability annex was adopted in 2005 by the 28th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting which was held in Stockholm Sweden. The annex has not yet entered into force; that will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties including our very own country New Zealand. The passing of the bill will enable New Zealand to formally approve the liability annex. 
New Zealand is one of 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC. The Government was very pleased to participate in the opening of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Washington in April this year alongside the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other Ministers who represented the parties to the treaty. There are now 47 parties to the Antarctic Treaty and the 50th anniversary of the treaty was celebrated at this year’s meeting. 
The Antarctic Treaty has proved itself to be one of the most forward-looking and successful international agreements of all time and it stands as a model of international cooperation. The first article of the treaty declares as a full principle that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” The treaty goes on to among other things prohibit the establishment of military bases on Antarctica the testing of any weapons there and the dumping of any nuclear waste. It would not be overstating matters to say that at the height of the Cold War the Antarctic Treaty delivered a huge peace dividend particularly for countries like New Zealand that neighbour the Antarctic Treaty area. 
In 1991 the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was concluded by the treaty partners in Madrid Spain. The protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designed as a natural reserve that is devoted to peace and science. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a commitment “to elaborate rules and procedures relating to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area.” The liability annex fulfils that longstanding and important obligation. Thus the annex is an important part of the Antarctic environmental protection regime of which New Zealand is a very strong supporter. The annex provides an incentive for preventing damage to the Antarctic environment as well as compensatory regimes for when damage occurs. New Zealand played a leading role in bringing the liability annex negotiations to a successful conclusion in 2005. Accordingly approving the annex and implementing it through this legislation is an opportunity to highlight and promote New Zealand’s support for a strong environmental protection regime for Antarctica. 
The bill implements the provisions of the annex by creating a regime of liability for environmental emergencies that take place in the Antarctic Treaty area. To that end new sections 37C and 37D impose certain obligations for responding to an environmental emergency in the Antarctic. In particular new section 37C requires that “A New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency or who discover an environmental emergency must immediately notify the Ministry”—of Foreign Affairs and Trade—“of the emergency.” New section 37D requires that “A New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency must take prompt and effective response action.” If an operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an environmental emergency a party to the liability annex may do so. 
The annex and the bill provide that a “response action” means “(a) determining the extent of the emergency and its impact; and (b) taking reasonable measures … to avoid minimise or contain the impact of the environmental emergency.” Failure to take a prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence under the bill and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years a fine of up to $200000 or both. Failure to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months a fine of up to $100000 or both. In addition where an operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an emergency that has been caused by the operator’s activities the bill imposes liability for the costs of the action that should have been taken. The costs will be paid either to an annex party if that party has taken action on the defaulting operator’s behalf or to an environmental protection fund. That fund will be administered by the Antarctic Treaty’s secretariat. 
New section 37G sets out certain situations in which an operator is exempt from liability as provided by the terms of the annex. In addition new section 37H imposes a financial limit on liability—again according to the terms of the annex. An example of where the provisions of the annex might be triggered is an oil spill arising from the grounding or sinking of a tourist vessel in Antarctica. We hope the annex will encourage operators to take greater steps to prevent such incidents from occurring. I add that New Zealand and other treaty parties view the current state of tourist shipping around Antarctica with some concern following four groundings and a sinking over the past two summers. New Zealand will be hosting an Antarctic Treaty meeting of experts to consider these issues in Wellington in December this year. 
This background highlights the fact that the provisions of this bill represent an important development in the Antarctic environmental protection regime. The New Zealand Government strongly supports this legislation. It will pave the way for the approval of the liability annex and it will therefore provide further important protection for the unique Antarctic environment. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 It is rare indeed when members of the Opposition rise to support a motion put forward by the Government but we do so with the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I stand as the Labour Party’s foreign affairs spokesperson to support the Government on the bill. 
Listeners to and viewers of Parliament heard Nathan Guy speak on behalf of the Government about the reasons why the bill is important. He very adequately and well described the technical aspects of the bill. Viewers may think the bill does not sound very exciting or important but it is actually enormously important. Nothing could be more important for New Zealand especially than protection of the unique environment of the Antarctic. 
I was privileged to serve for 5 years as New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has a special relationship to Antarctica because under the Conservation Act the Minister of Conservation is responsible for the biodiversity protection of the unique environment of the Ross Sea which is part of New Zealand’s claim to Antarctica. I was privileged to visit Antarctica in 2003 and to be able to see for myself that unique environment which makes up probably the most mysterious continent on the Earth. 
Why should New Zealanders—indeed why should people around this planet—care about the protection of the Antarctic? Because the Antarctic is probably the most unspoilt environment on the Earth. It is also incredibly important not just because of its unique biodiversity which I will talk a little bit more about in a moment but because of its impact on world climate. The Antarctic has been often described as one of the two lungs of the Earth; the other being the great tropical forests that span the equatorial regions of the Earth. 
Earlier today I was thinking about my contribution to this debate and I looked up the British Antarctic Survey’s latest report on Antarctica. The report heads up the very first paragraph with “Why should we study Antarctic climate?”. It goes on to state: “The Antarctic region is an important regulator of global climate. The Southern Ocean is a significant sink for both heat and carbon dioxide acting as a buffer against human-induced climate change.” 
Sadly climate change is taking place and if we do not do something about carbon dioxide emissions then it will get worse and the natural environment of the Antarctic will be further impacted by this change. 
What we are seeing and what we can regulate is the increasing human presence on Antarctica the most mysterious continent on the Earth. More and more tourists are travelling to Antarctica. Energy companies are eyeing the potential resources of the vast frozen continent for oil gas and other critical resources for our energy-hungry world. All of that will mean a greater human footprint in this most unique of continents. One of the ways in which we can protect the continent is by this amendment to legislation to make sure that any tourist operator any energy company and any scientist or visitor to Antarctica who causes an environmental impact is held responsible and liable for that damage. 
Just a few minutes ago Nathan Guy talked about what would happen if a ship started to sink. In my previous job as Minister of Conservation I had to deal with exactly that issue in Antarctica. The Japanese whaling ship  
Nissan Maru  
caught fire in February 2007. One of the crew was killed. The ship was loaded with diesel oil and many other chemicals used for the rendering down of whale carcasses. If that material had leaked into the Ross Sea we would have faced an environmental catastrophe. That is a very practical example of how this unique natural environment is at risk. 
I would like to stray on to the whole issue of Japanese whaling from which a thousand whales a year are slaughtered by the Japanese in the name of science. I guess in a way that that is an environmental violation of a unique environment too but my focus today has to be on the legislation. The bill is about providing a mechanism to deal with the growing human footprint in Antarctica about protecting the unique biodiversity and natural landscapes of that amazing continent and about a fine example of international cooperation. 
Finally New Zealand has a unique role in the Antarctic treaty process. Many aspects of Operation Deep Freeze operate out of Christchurch. We have the International Antarctic Centre in Christchurch. We were the port of call for Shackleton and Scott and the other great explorers of the Antarctic. Indeed New Zealand is responsible for the preservation of the unique historic sites in Antarctica of Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut which I have had the privilege of visiting. We have a special relationship with that continent and with what happens there so I say on behalf of Labour that we are very pleased to support the bill and we would be very excited to see its speedy process through this Parliament. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow on from the Hon Nathan Guy and indeed from the Hon Chris Carter; we heard from the previous speaker of his experience as a Minister of Conservation. He talked of the need to guard against accidents from tourism operators and that sort of thing. 
I thought it might be useful to viewers and listeners and indeed to the House to flesh some of those figures out a little bit. In preparation for this speech I noted that in 2003 there were some 13500 visitors to the Antarctic—13500 visitors in the very fragile infrastructure down there. Some 4000 people are there on a permanent basis as part of the Antarctic teams. So in 2003 there were 13500 visitors to the Antarctic but if we look at the figures for 2007 and 2008 we see that the totals have risen to 46000 so the numbers are really increasing in view of the fragile nature of the environment down there. I know of some tourism operators from New Zealand who are very responsible. They will charter vessels that operate only on light diesel so that if there were an accident the diesel would at least evaporate. That is in contrast to other countries whose ships go down there using heavy oil which of course would create a slick and cause untold damage. 
I think this is a most timely bill because the vessels are getting larger and the rescuing of large vessels from that distance and in that environment is a logistical exercise in itself. Anybody who has been responsible for civil defence will of course be able to imagine the complexities and difficulties that would occur because of those large boats which often have incorrect superstructure for the Antarctic. That is a concern. 
I am pleased to be speaking on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The bill as the previous speakers have detailed amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 by inserting a new Part 5A. It is necessary that we do so because it is important that the Government implements New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. This bill will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This Government takes its international obligations seriously so it is indeed good to see that this bill enshrines many of those obligations in law. 
Let us delve a little bit into the bill’s background and history. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty—and is proud to be so—which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC. New Zealand is also party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty concluded by the treaty parties in Madrid Spain in 1991. Annex VI commonly known as the Antarctic liability annex was adopted in 2005 by the 28th Antarctic treaty consultative meeting held in Stockholm Sweden. Though not yet entered into force that will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic treaty consultative parties including New Zealand. 
 It is without doubt that New Zealand has strong historic links with Antarctica in exploration research and environmental protection and indeed in proximity. This bill solidifies our links and our excellent relationship. If we look into the details of the bill it becomes clear that it is a strong and decisive bill that is eminently sensible and will have an effect on the international scene. In new section 37B an environmental emergency is described as “an accidental event that—(a) results in or imminently threatens to result in a significant and harmful impact on the Antarctic environment;”. Again the fragile nature of that environment makes it vulnerable. 
I believe that another feature of New Zealand vessels taking tourists there is that they are particularly careful with any food scraps because goodness knows what could happen to the avian life if disease were introduced from food refuse thrown overboard. 
This bill requires New Zealand operators whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it makes it an offence not to do so. It also requires New Zealand operators to take prompt and effective response action to such an emergency. The bill provides that if a New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency fails to take a prompt and effective response action then that operator is liable to pay the cost incurred by the annex party that does take responsive action. 
I am delighted with this bill especially as the punishment for these crimes is not in any way lenient but instead reflects the seriousness with which we take the issue. Failing to take prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence for which the punishment is a healthy period of imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of up to $200000 or both. In addition failing to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to 12 months a fine of up to $100000 or both. 
This bill is not simply a matter of fulfilling our international obligations. It also recognises and gives effect to the importance of protecting Antarctica’s unique environment. The annex will encourage good environmental practice and ensure international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region. I am talking about such things as oil spills the disposal of waste and the impacts of tourism. I think the Antarctic is particularly vulnerable to those impacts if they are not controlled. 
The annex will help protect the natural and unique resources and wildlife in Antarctica. The protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. Indeed Antarctica is a crucial area for environmental research including research into climate and it is an outstanding example of cooperation between scientists from around the world. 
Parties have been working on the liability annex required by the protocol since 1991. I have heard progress on this issue described as glacial and every permutation of approach and philosophy has been tried. It has been a slow but thorough negotiating process for all parties but the general consensus on the protocol as it stands focused mainly on the emergency response action is that it will be effective. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a commitment to elaborate rules and procedures relating to damage arising from the activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area. 
We are fulfilling our obligations and that is important not just for our relationships with other countries. We are also being true to ourselves and to the commitment of New Zealanders who have gone down to the Antarctic and who have done so much to make it known to the world. This bill will achieve what it sets out to do and the National-led Government strongly supports it. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa e te Kaihautu o te Whare tenei ahiahi. Greetings on this Thursday afternoon. I stand to take a short call and like my senior colleague I find myself in the rather unusual but nevertheless tolerable position—only because it is fleeting—of agreeing with the Government. Labour supports the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Can any of us forget where we were or what we thought when we heard about the tragic event on Mount Erebus? It opened an avenue for us despite the tragedy to understand how fragile how distant and how unforgiving the landscape of Antarctica is. Our rights there have to be balanced by obligations and duties and that is what this legislation enables our small nation State to do. We are proud of the feats of New Zealanders in Antarctica and of the cultural social and adventurous heritage of New Zealand that is rooted in that part of the world. So the notion that we should stand and be prepared to meet the financial challenges that Lord forbid would come about if a tragedy or an accident should take place there is something that ought to be celebrated and certainly debated and agreed upon in the highest court of the land. 
For the record I want to identify four of five key things. Those with a more exhaustive contribution to make than mine have more than likely already spoken; one or three may still follow. I say there is a treaty system in Antarctica and it behoves all of us to remain vigilant and to observe the duties that it imposes on us. In order to give effect to a duty one has to exercise the role of being very active in one’s need or want to protect one’s interests there. 
 As Mr Carter has said the more we learn about climate change the greater our appreciation is of the critical importance of Antarctica not only to the health of the oceans but indeed to our long-term survival. So this is no small matter. Although Antarctica does not intrude on a regular basis into the daily grind of the lives of Kiwis I can assure members that more and more of our mokopuna—the younger members of our New Zealand families—are learning and appreciating what that place represents in terms of their own long-term interests. 
I like it that this bill is very clear on liability. There is nothing like the chilly winds of a liability action to effect a change in conduct. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The flutter of a cheque book. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The member is quite right—both “check” and “cheque”. The adoption of the liability annex will fulfil a longstanding obligation on countries and it will be enforceable. Let us hope the situation never comes to that; one would imagine that international citizenship in such an area as Antarctica would immediately cause people to step up to the plate. But the liability annex actually represents an incentive so that those of our citizens our firms and other interests who go down there and who either are not alert or do not feel it is in their area of responsibility to be vigilant will pay for it. It is good that we highlight these things in this House. It is so good to talk about something positive given the very wretched set of events that have taken place this afternoon on matters related to another treaty. 
However coming back to this bill I say we should be proud of the role that Aotearoa has played in the negotiations. Of course all parliamentarians have their differences with the Governments of the day but I have no doubt that Mr McCully or his proxy will be a suitable representative. I just hope that the member who spoke yesterday on climate change is not that proxy or if he is that he changes both his apparel and his verbal presentation skills. But Mr McCully or whoever the person is can go forward in the knowledge that all parliamentarians will back the stance that our representative takes in relation to improving the liability annex in an international context. So I give full marks to the Government and to all of us as parliamentarians for showing that we value both our heritage in Antarctica and the critical role that the continent plays in the sustainability of the lives of the world’s citizens. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There has been a great deal of talk today—well actually I have been talking a great deal today—about the injustice created through the impact of institutional racism. So I have looked through the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill considering the effects of institutional racism upon agencies represented on the Officials’ Antarctic Committee as played out in this draft legislation. If we recall institutional racism is a bias in our social and administrative institutions that automatically benefits the dominant race or culture while penalising minority and subordinate groups. My review did not start off too well. Seventeen agencies were included in the consultation process for parties interested in treaty action in Antarctica. Missing from the list were Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Office of Ethnic Affairs. 
So then I turned to the actual text of the bill and the circumstances described. Obviously I thought there would be acknowledgment of the fact that Maori tradition tells us that a tupuna by the name of Huiterangiora was the first person to discover Antarctica. He is said to have encountered the icebergs of Antarctica in AD 650 during a voyage south of New Zealand. Huiterangiora was in fact an explorer of such import that in my electorate in the whare tupuna at Te Awhina Marae in Motueka the tekoteko at the top of the meeting house is Huiterangiora looking out—looking for land. His achievements are also honoured in the island opposite the Riwaka wharf known to us as Hui Te Rangiora or Outer Island. Well there is no mention of Huiterangiora or of the importance of cultural sites of significance in this bill. 
Perhaps then there might be mention of Ngapuhi man Tuati who had been part of the United States Exploring Expedition that explored the Southern Ocean between 1838 and 1842. In fact Tuati Peak at the head of the Mount Mitchell glacier is named after him. While we are looking at the lie of the land we might also wonder whence Potaka Inlet at the north side of Thurston Island—the third-largest island off Antarctica—derives its name. It is traced back to Louis Hauiti Potaka the fifth Maori medical graduate in New Zealand who served as a doctor in the Antarctic in 1934. 
Well without further prolonging the House it has become rapidly evident that the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act is completely silent on matters of Antarctica’s own cultural heritage and the unique relationship between that land and the tangata whenua of Aotearoa. This is of course a great disappointment for a nation in which as senior National MP Tau Henare put it so eloquently such representation is supported across many levels including as an expression of justice democracy economic value cultural identity political diversity and even the potential for successful prototypes. Instead we have a bill that seeks to implement a number of New Zealand’s obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty without any acknowledgment at all of another treaty Te Tiriti o Waitangi—strange but true. We are not talking about a 1 percent population; we are talking about tangata whenua—the indigenous peoples of this land; the first peoples of this nation—who in 1840 signed a treaty with the Queen of England to create the foundation for the future advancement of this land. 
The Maori Party’s greatest desire is that Maori representation be valued and acknowledged in every debate and in every bill. I want to make it quite clear that our support for this bill is driven firmly and unequivocally on the basis of our kaupapa to promote sustainable environmental management. The Maori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone and for future generations. By this we mean that our respect for Papatuanuku extends past the mere geographic boundaries of these shores. 
The bill requires New Zealand operators—those organising expeditions to Antarctica—to immediately notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade should their activities give rise to an environmental emergency or should they discover an environmental emergency. It goes one step further and notes that operators must take prompt and effective response action. To fail to do so is an offence and if convicted a New Zealand operator is liable for up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $200000. We absolutely endorse the bill’s intention to legislate a requirement for responsive action to an environmental emergency in Antarctica as this is consistent with Maori Party policy. We concur with the liability annex in that imposing legal liability to clean up or pay the costs of response action where damage does occur will act as an incentive for operators to minimise damage to the environment. In other words supporting a healthy and sustainable environment is valued and a failure to provide the appropriate protection will come at a cost to the operator. 
Finally the Maori Party is proud to support the Antarctic Treaty as a very important mechanism by which to regulate international relations in respect of Antarctica. The treaty has 14 articles which establish Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science providing for freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation and prohibiting military activity. I remind the House that Aotearoa was one of the original 12 countries that first signed up to the treaty in 1961. This bill sends a very strong signal to all parties involved in scientific research programmes tourism and all other governmental and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area about the intentions in relation to environmental emergencies in the Antarctic Treaty area. 
In keeping with our responsibilities and obligations as a good global citizen we are happy to support this bill. We welcome the introduction of the annex to the environmental protocol setting out legal liability for damage to the Antarctic environment and we look forward to further debate on this bill. We do so finally in the hope that when this bill next comes before the House at least the word “Maori” may grace its pages. Kia ora. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. As has been noted in the House already this is an important bill. It is designed to protect Antarctica that magnificent frozen continent and its very fragile ecosystem from environmental emergencies. 
It is very pleasing that New Zealand is leading the way with this legislation highlighting our strong support for environmental protection in Antarctica. New Zealand has always played an important role in Antarctica and Christchurch my home town is the official gateway city to Antarctica activities. 
It was interesting to hear from Rahui Katene that Maori were the first people to discover Antarctica. In terms of Europeans Captain James Cook reached Antarctic pack ice in the  
Resolution 
 on his second voyage to New Zealand in 1774. By 1832 whaling ships from many different countries including America Norway France and Germany were operating out of the Banks Peninsula bays and were whaling in Antarctic waters as far south as the Ross Sea. 
In 1901 and 1910 Robert Falcon Scott sailed from Lyttelton to lead expeditions to the South Pole. Tragically Scott and his four companions including Oates died on their return voyage from the South Pole in 1913. Other explorers including Roald Amundsen the great Norwegian explorer who was the first to reach the South Pole and Ernest Shackleton whose unsuccessful expedition has become a legend in human endurance and survival were linked to Christchurch and New Zealand. 
Further Antarctic expeditions were led by Admiral Richard Byrd who made seven visits to Antarctica and regarded Christchurch as his second home. In 1958 the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition led by Vivian Fuchs and including Sir Edmund Hillary achieved Shackleton’s goal of crossing the entire Antarctic continent successfully. 
New Zealand was one of the original four signatories to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. New Zealand was part of the environmental protocol that entered into force in 1998 and New Zealand chaired negotiations for annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection in the Antarctic Treaty on Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies known as the liability annex in Stockholm Sweden. The liability annex was adopted in 2005 and this bill is the outcome for New Zealand. 
Therefore it is enormously satisfying to be one of the first of 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties to pass legislation to implement New Zealand’s obligations for environmental protection in Antarctica and to do it just before the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty signing which happens in December this year. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It has been fantastic to hear the debate in the House on a non-controversial treaty amendment bill the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I found it very interesting to hear the Maori Party’s contribution because the bill is not about tangata whenua; it is about countries internationally agreeing about the protection of the Antarctic. Although I acknowledge what the Maori Party was saying about the role of tangata whenua in New Zealand waters we are talking here today about Antarctica and the protection of its environment. 
The story has unfolded over many years as we have heard from the previous speakers. It began 48 years ago—a long time ago. My figure says 48 years ago; the previous speaker Nicky Wagner quoted 2 years earlier—1959—but it is neither here nor there. It has been a long journey. As Chris Auchinvole said it has been glacial. It is becoming more imperative today as we face climate change which we all acknowledge as real that we make sure we do all we can to ensure there is no further degradation or no increased speed of degradation of the Antarctic. 
New Zealand has a lead role. I am very proud of our role. I have never been down there. I envied hearing Chris Carter say that he went down there when he was the Minister of Conservation. I never got that far when I was the Minister of Conservation. I did not even make the Subantarctic Islands. It is a place on everybody’s to-do list. It is one of those places about which people say on their return they have been profoundly changed by the impact of the environment by the sheer scope of the subantarctic region—the ocean and the land mass. According to one observation there does not appear to be a lot of snow on the land mass. 
I have had something of a role in the Antarctic with my brother being an artist in residence down there. He painted the Shackleton hut. It is great to have another bit of artistic preservation of the Antarctic. Those old huts are wonderful and when one sees those paintings photographs and historical records one realises how those early explorers lived on such a remote and vast continent. 
The treaty has gone on for a long time. It is still not entered into by 28 parties but I think New Zealand will be leading the way. When we start the negotiations we will be one of the first countries to approve the liability annex. Only Sweden Peru Poland and Spain have signed the annex. The bill today is another step on New Zealand’s journey. I am really proud we all agree that the bill is absolutely important. 
Chris Auchinvole’s great overview of the activities that go on down in that part of the country was interesting. The New Zealand Air Force flies C130J Hercules and P3K Orions down to the Antarctic from Christchurch as Nicky Wagner will know. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research undertakes significant scientific research down there which is really valuable for New Zealand in informing us of the rate of sea warming and climate change. I am amazed at the level of activity of huge cruise ships which go down there for 3 weeks at a time. The number of visits increasing in just a decade from 13000 to 46000 shows that if we do not do something now with this annex and get it signed we will have to deal with some amazing risks in the future. 
When I was the Minister of Conservation we were always very involved in the issue of whale fishing. New Zealand proudly said no to the hunting of whales in the Antarctic. We were very worried about activities at sea during the whaling season. There was a fire and we were also worried about oil spillage. The environmental protection will be of great benefit to the non-governmental organisations that watch the level of activity there. They get down into those territorial waters every year during the whaling season. We were very worried about safety at sea. When there is a lot of clutter down in the Ross Sea—so far away from New Zealand—the only way to mitigate any harm or risk is through the air force. It takes days for ships to get down there even if National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientific vessels are in the Antarctic. 
The bill is a great bill. I think it has a carrot and stick approach. The financial liability limits that are included in the annex—US$1.5 million for events caused by a shipping vessel in those waters—are a great incentive for people to have a risk management plan and a mitigation of risk plan. If there are other environmental emergencies down there the penalty of US$4.5 million sends a very strong message that we value the subantarctic and the Antarctic. All of us around the world have a part to play in making sure that the Antarctic Treaty strongly supports the objectives of environmental protection. 
All that the bill does is insert a new Part 5A which is about the environmental protection annex. Once it is signed we will have very clear legal liability for damage in an environment that everybody knows is very precious to the world. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill in the name of Minister McCully. The bill implements many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding a liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. As the previous speaker Steve Chadwick said the bill will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. I will touch on three key issues. The first is around the significance of Antarctica tourism to the region and its impact. I will also talk about penguins. 
Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent and has 10 percent of the earth’s land area. It is 14 million square kilometres and interestingly enough it is the windiest place on earth. It is also the driest place on earth. Antarctica is the continent that has the least information known about it. That is why it is critical not only to protect this pristine environment but also to learn more about it. Antarctica is the world’s finest laboratory. Scientists from all over the world and a significant number from New Zealand go there to study a whole range of things including the organisms that live in that unspoilt ecosystem. Some things that are important are the consequences of climate change and the clues to the origins of the universe. It is very timely that just yesterday members of the Education and Science Committee visited GNS Science and were able to get very close to some of the polar ice that our New Zealand scientists are studying in a whole range of mechanisms. We were fortunate enough to stand in the chilly bin of minus 35 degrees and only a few moments in that chilly bin gave us a small taste of what it is like for the scientists who work in Antarctica for months on end. 
The second thing I want to touch on is tourism. We obviously have a lot of scientists who travel to Antarctica to do very significant national Antarctic programmes but they are less than 10 percent of the people who visit Antarctica each year. Depending on which analysis one looks at one finds the figures are 46000 to 48000 tourist visitors to Antarctica per year—and they are having an impact. I think of 46000 and that is twice the population of Taupo visiting Antarctica on an annual basis. That is a huge number of people. Of course they visit for a short time but their impact on the environment is high. One example we have heard about today which my colleague Mr Auchinvole talked about was that of people getting there in large and small ships and if any of those ships get grounded—a high risk—the consequence is devastating for the environment with oil spills. 
The other thing I want to touch on is penguins. Who can think of Antarctica without thinking about penguins? No I am not talking about the enclosed ones in Auckland at Kelly Tarlton’s Antarctic Encounter and Underwater World I am specifically talking about the Adélie penguins. They are the longest-studied Antarctic organism around and also the most abundant population of penguins; there are over 10 million of them. The significance of those Adélie penguins is that by studying penguin populations we are able to get early indicators of the impact of global climate change. The significance of the penguins is the ability for scientists to look at what is happening with global climate change. 
Let us look for a moment at annex VI which is what this bill is about; the bill enables New Zealand to formally approve that annex. I want to look at some of the releases that came out following the 2005 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Sweden where the annex was passed. One of the issues dealt with that took up a lot of time was as I have mentioned the ability to better manage the flow of tourists to Antarctica. At that stage in 2005 the number was 30000. In 2009 we are already talking 46000 to 48000 so there has been a significant increase in a short period of time. That is why it is so vital that New Zealand signs up to formally adopt this annex. One of the quotes from the Swedish Minister for the Environment said: “We need a strategy for how we can secure the environmentally sustainable management of Antarctica. The strategy will deal with how we can manage future environmental challenges in Antarctica both in the short and in the long term.” That is where a lot of the work has carried on. 
Some other things that the bill focuses on are around environmental emergencies. The definition of an environmental emergency is very broad so it is very important that this bill is passed. I am proud to stand and commend this bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased particularly as a Christchurch member of Parliament to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Antarctica is not completely untouched but it is certainly the least altered large land mass in the world with many unique ecosystems animals and landscapes. It gives the last opportunity we have to preserve and protect a whole continent in as natural a condition as possible. 
In the past Antarctica has been used with little regard to the consequences for the environment. Whales were hunted almost to extinction in the 1800s and early 1900s. On the continent itself where only 2 percent of the land is ice-free scientific bases runways and dumps have competed with penguins seals and moss fields for space. Even in the 1970s it was a common perception that there was so much empty space in Antarctica that human activities would have no impact. Since then I think we as a people have realised that Antarctica is not isolated from the rest of the world and that it has an impact on ocean currents weather patterns and migratory animals that extends well beyond the Antarctic Circle. Similarly we have discovered that the ozone hole that occurs above Antarctica each spring has links with chlorofluorocarbons. We know that global warming which has its origins in nations such as ours and in many other countries will have major consequences for Antarctica and therefore for everyone on the planet. 
The protection of the Antarctic environment has its foundations in the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. That was not very long after Sir Edmund Hillary’s trek by tractor across the continent. I think that Sir Edmund loved Antarctica almost as much as he loved the Himalayas. From what I know from those who went with him on his last trip to Antarctica he treasured that place and they treasured that time with him. I think he would be very proud to see this bill before Parliament today. 
 The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 also aimed to avoid international disputes particularly over things such as mineral resources. It was very pleasing to note therefore that in 1975 the then Labour Government the Rowling Labour Government suggested that Antarctica be declared a world park. Unfortunately many other countries considered that mineral exploration in Antarctica was inevitable and wanted to establish guidelines for mining. There was a development of a convention to so do. Mercifully public and world opinion at the time was going in the opposite direction so instead of that in fact we got the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty also known as the Madrid Protocol. That introduced an indefinite ban on mining activities in Antarctica and designated Antarctica as a natural space reserved for and devoted to peace and science. 
The protocol emphasised responsible environmental management. Like the liability annex we are now discussing as a House the environmental protocol did not come into force until all 26 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties had ratified it. This was finally achieved in January 1998. By ratifying that protocol New Zealand signalled its commitment to ensuring that activities in Antarctica complied with the standards of the protocol. 
This bill introduces the liability annex to that protocol. The need for it is underlined I think by a period of just 3 months. A couple of years ago in the waters off Antarctica in the space of a 12-week period there were two accidents involving cruise ships. One cruise ship had 154 people on board and also many thousands of litres of fuel but the people were rescued. Three months later there was another incident where a cruise ship spilled nearly 700 litres of diesel into the waters off Antarctica. Of course it is not just cruise liners that present the environmental challenges that the annex of this bill attempts to deal with. Our own Defence Force regularly sends Hercules aircraft to Antarctica; our Orions oversee the waters above Antarctica. We all hope and pray that nothing ever happens to any of our aircraft but there are liabilities ensuing if such an incident were to happen. That is what this House is attempting to address with the legislation in front of us today. 
I think we would all accept that Antarctica and its environments are essential to all of our futures. Although this bill deals with liability aspects I think it also bodes well for the House that we are acknowledging the wider importance of the Antarctic environment. With this piece of legislation we are upholding the “polluter pays” concept. I think we need to note that remote though it is Antarctica is essential to the lives of every person on this planet. If we lost Antarctica through ice melt we as peoples in this nation would all be seeking high-country tenure review. This bill recognises the unique fragile and important nature of Antarctica’s environment. It deserves our consideration as a House. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I start by acknowledging the strong and historic links our country has had over a long period of time with Antarctica. These links are extensive. They cover areas like exploration research and of course environmental protection. We have had a close relationship with Antarctica not only because it is near to us geographically but also because since 1923 we have maintained our right of sovereignty over the Ross Dependency. 
At 14 million square kilometres Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent in area. About 98 percent of Antarctica is covered by ice which averages at least 1.6 kilometres in thickness. In terms of human activity although there are no permanent human residents there between 1000 and 5000 people as Ms Upston has already mentioned reside throughout the year at the research stations scattered across the continent. I acknowledge the work of these individuals and the tremendous contribution that they are making to science and our environment. I also acknowledge what Ms Upston mentioned regarding the penguins. Over 10 million penguins reside in Antarctica and that is one of the reasons why this bill is so important. We all acknowledge the amazing environment that exists there and the rich sea life including blue whales orcas colossal squid and fur seals but also the penguins. Antarctica is also the coldest place on earth. Louise Upston mentioned that it is the windiest and driest place but the coldest natural temperature ever recorded on earth was minus 89.2 degrees Celsius at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983. 
I think it is also important to acknowledge that the New Zealand Government has developed procedures for tourists and non-governmental visitors wishing to visit Antarctica based on the requirements of the protocol on environmental protection. Currently for any proposed activity in Antarctica an environmental impact assessment must be submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is why I am very pleased to stand here and support the next step that is taken in this bill. The bill is not only consistent with our environmental policy but also consistent with our foreign policy. 
I want to talk about how the legislation came about. Many speakers have mentioned that New Zealand first became a party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty signed by the treaty parties in Madrid Spain in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as of dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a key commitment to elaborate rules and procedures relating to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area. The Antarctic liability annex fulfils this longstanding obligation. 
National supports not only the fulfilment of our international obligations set out under the protocol but also the protection of Antarctica’s unique environment. The annex is an important part of the Antarctic environmental protection regime of which our country is a strong supporter. The annex will encourage good environmental practice and ensure international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region such as oil spills the disposal of waste and the impacts of tourism. I think another important point to make is that Antarctica will be a crucial area for environmental research including climate research which Ms Chadwick has also outlined. 
The key purpose of this bill is to implement many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding the liability of environmental agencies in Antarctica. Although the annex has not yet entered into force this will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties including New Zealand. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington DC. A key aspect of this bill is that it requires New Zealand operators whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it makes it an offence not to do so. It also requires New Zealand operators to make a prompt and effective response to that emergency. What is an environmental emergency? An environmental emergency is described as “an accidental event that … results in or imminently threatens to result in a significant and harmful impact on the Antarctic environment”. 
This bill provides that if a New Zealander whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency fails to take a prompt and effective response action then the operator is liable to pay the costs incurred by any annex party that does take a response action. The punishment is significant; it shows the value we place on the environment. Failing to take a prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence for which the punishment is imprisonment for up to 2 years a fine of up to $200000 or both. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months. 
In conclusion I say I support this bill because it demonstrates as many speakers have mentioned that New Zealand is leading the way in good environmental practice and because it ensures there will be international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region. This bill is an excellent bill. Not only will it help the rich sea life of Antarctica but also it shows New Zealand is leading the way in terms of good environmental practice and we are doing it for the benefit of the penguins. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a second time 
. New Zealand ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict on 24 July last year. The convention was established in response to the widespread destruction of cultural property during the Second World War. It provides for the protection of things like movable property such as works of art manuscripts books scientific collections and archives; monuments and archaeological sites; museums and libraries; and centres containing a large amount of cultural property. 
The bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols of the convention. The first protocol is concerned with the export trade in cultural objects from warring States and the second protocol aims to provide additional protection to the most important cultural objects in the world. The two protocols require the creation of a number of criminal offences relating to the removal of cultural property from occupied territory dealing in such property and various acts against cultural property in situations of armed conflict. Currently 123 States are party to the Hague convention 100 to the first protocol and 52 to the second protocol. The United States ratified the convention in March this year and the United Kingdom is currently working towards accession to the convention and to both protocols. 
Let me briefly go through the key elements of the bill. There are three main parts. Part 2 criminalises serious violations of the second protocol. The second protocol requires that States make a number of acts criminal offences when committed intentionally during an armed conflict. These acts include making property subject to enhanced protection under the second protocol the object of attack the extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property and stealing appropriating or vandalising cultural property. Provision is also made for appropriate penalties for these offences for the prosecution of New Zealanders if the offences take place overseas and for various related elements such as extradition aiding and abetting offences and prosecuting perpetrators who happen to be present in New Zealand. 
Part 3 provides that it will be an offence to import property taken from occupied territory into New Zealand and then to onsell receive or re-export such property. The Customs Service and the Police will have the powers to seize such objects and good-faith purchasers of cultural property that has to be returned can seek compensation most likely to be paid by the State seeking the return not by New Zealand. 
Although the convention has been ratified the opportunity is taken in Part 4 to make unauthorised uses of the convention emblem an offence. 
 The bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee and it received two written submissions on the draft bill. I acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions and the recommendations of the select committee. The amendments are mainly concerned with the important issue of the jurisdiction that New Zealand will take over alleged offenders. 
New clause 9A will ensure that universal jurisdiction would not be created over the grave violation offences set out in the bill. Universal jurisdiction is a special very rare type of jurisdiction and it appropriately applies only to the most serious international crimes such as piracy slavery and genocide. This clause will allow New Zealand to prosecute persons from non-party States for offences. If a person commits an offence in the territory of a second protocol party’s State and then comes to New Zealand this amendment will allow New Zealand to prosecute the offender. 
The change to the jurisdiction provisions also reinforces that the person must be “found in New Zealand”. The provisions in the extradition clause clause 13 reinforce this making it clear that such people would not be brought to New Zealand to face charges but would have to come here of their own volition or be found in New Zealand before they could be charged. 
Other technical amendments are required to align the bill with other legislation that has been passed since the bill was introduced. 
With this bill and with the subsequent accession to the protocols New Zealand reinforces its commitment to other international agreements to prevent the illegal export or import of important cultural artefacts. An example of such an international agreement is the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Accession to the first and second protocols will reinforce the excellent reputation of New Zealand’s armed forces serving overseas. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage will be working with the New Zealand Defence Force to ensure its training and operational manuals meet the requirements of the convention. Accession will also reinforce New Zealand’s participation in international efforts to lessen the consequences of armed conflict for cultural heritage. 
I appreciate the support of other parties in the House to expedite the passage of this bill as New Zealand will then be able to meet its obligations as a State party both to the convention and to its protocols. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Show that appreciation. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What was that? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Say once more with meaning that you appreciate the other parties. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I really appreciate the support that has been given by the other parties on this issue. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s human after all! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am human. It is only on rare occasions that I have to scold Labour like when it waxed lyrical about the urgent need to pass laws on provocation although it did nothing when it was in Government because it was too busy passing the Electoral Finance Act. Generosity goes both ways but it is very rare to have any kind of generous comment from Mr Hughes. But we will leave it at that because we must move on. This is not a debate about personalities; it is a debate about issues. So let us go forward together. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I am not sure whether to laugh or what after those final comments from the previous speaker the Hon Chris Finlayson. What I am pleased to say is that the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill which of course was a Labour Government bill is being continued and supported by the National-led Government through the legislative process. 
Our former colleague the Hon Judith Tizard introduced the bill in her role as Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. She was as was the previous Labour Government and particularly the previous Prime Minister Helen Clark passionate about the preservation of culture and the protection of culture. 
Members of the House will remember that Helen Clark took the unusual step when she became Prime Minister in 1999 of taking the portfolio of arts culture and heritage. As she said at the time—and it is very pertinent to the debate around this bill—there is nothing more important to a country and a society than its culture. It is one of the ways in which we define our unique identity as New Zealanders and the protection of culture is something this bill seeks to ensure in an armed conflict situation. 
Is there a need for the bill? Well history has shown very much that there is. I can think of numerous examples from history where in conflict invasion and revolution there has been enormous loss of treasures. Often the bulk of the treasures that have defined and been the product of unique cultures are lost. One can think of the invasion of Mexico by Hernando Cortés or of Francisco Pizarro’s invasion of Peru the destruction of the Aztec and Inca empires and the loss of the incredible cultural heritage of those regions through armed conflict between cultures. I think of the Allied invasion of the Summer Palace in Beijing in 1899. Much of China’s unique cultural heritage was either destroyed or stolen and transported to the museums of Europe and Japan by the invading armies. 
So it has happened in history. Can it happen today? Indeed it can. We need only think of a short time ago in history when the American-led invasion of Iraq saw all Iraq’s museums—all of them—looted. It is estimated that some 15000 objects were taken from Iraq—the land of the two rivers the home of ancient Mesopotamia where agriculture began. Many of the unique treasures— 
Interruption 
] Did I hear someone from the Government say “Good job!”? I have to say that stealing a country’s cultural heritage which this bill seeks to protect is not something that is funny or should be made a joke about. 
Some of the objects stolen from the Iraqi museums are over 9000 years old. They date back to the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of agriculture which set human beings on the progress to civilisation. Those treasures have been looted in a war situation. That is what we seek to prevent. 
Another contemporary example is the looting of art treasures that occurred during World War II first by the Nazis in occupied Europe and then by the liberating Red Army as it conquered most of Eastern Europe. The art treasures particularly artworks were taken from Berlin and other German cities and then later of course transported east into the cities of the Soviet Union. 
Those examples are very practical and contemporary and show why we need legislation like this to protect a nation’s cultural heritage. Another example occurred in Bamian where our provincial reconstruction team is doing such an excellent job—which is soon to be ended by a decision of the National Government. Two great statues of Buddha that had stood in Bamian for thousands for years were blown up by the Taliban in their mad desire to create a fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan. 
 The Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill is a Labour bill that is supported by the new National Government. We are very pleased about that. It is an important bill as the previous Government speaker said. It ties us into the work Unesco is doing and that is very important. This bill has the wholehearted support of the Labour Party. How could it not? It was our bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the second reading of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill which languished for many years under the previous Labour Government but has been brought to the House again by the Hon Chris Finlayson the most excellent Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. He really does put his mark on culture in New Zealand with his commitment to legislation such as this. This National-led Government truly understands the importance of the protection of cultural objects. We do not just talk about it and then let the bill lie around for a while. We have brought this legislation to the Chamber and I am very pleased to be speaking at its second reading. 
I am really grateful for the good work in the Government Administration Committee chaired by David Parker. There were a number of excellent members from the National side of the House and Labour of course. I acknowledge my colleagues and the collegial way in which we worked through quite a technical bill. To highlight that I make note of the diagram on page 3 of the commentary. It was a hard-fought inclusion in the commentary on the bill —though it was not an internal fight—in order to aid clarity and understanding. There are a number of complex and technical issues contained in this bill pertaining to who shall be liable and with whom the responsibility lies whether they are New Zealanders and whether they are in the armed forces. Due to the number of provisions in the bill we felt in the select committee that a diagram would aid understanding of the bill—so there it lies in the commentary. I think it is the best diagram I have seen in a piece of legislation and I hope it aids understanding. 
The purpose of the bill most important and as acknowledged by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Chris Finlayson is that it will enable New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. We are all well aware of and very concerned about the destruction of cultural property. We noted that a lot of destruction was undertaken through the course of World War II; in fact there was widespread destruction of culturally significant artefacts and property. 
The first protocol is concerned with the export trade in cultural objects from warring States. The second protocol aims to provide additional protection to the most important cultural objects in the world and it would be fair to say that some of those are pretty readily identifiable. This bill creates a number of criminal offences including the removal of cultural property from an occupied territory. An example would be where somebody in the armed forces souvenirs a piece of cultural property a marvellous piece of culture from that country. A further offence relates to dealing in such property. Obviously cultural property can have a significant value which is often one of the reasons why it is removed. The bill also covers various acts against cultural property in situations of armed conflict. It will also make it a criminal offence to use the symbol of the Hague convention without authorisation. 
In a lighter moment in the committee there was much interest around what the Hague convention symbol would look like. I imagined something quite grand but no it is just an “H” or something quite plain. However in this bill it is a criminal offence to use the symbol without authorisation. That is probably a good thing because we are dealing with significant items of cultural heritage of other peoples’ countries and we should respect that. 
There is also a category called enhanced protection property which relates to property under a special protection regime set out in this bill. This category is for property of particular significance. It will be an offence under this legislation to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or enhanced protection property or to encourage another person to do one of these acts. This means someone cannot just sit in the back telling another person to nick it because it will not matter—it covers that as well. It will be an offence to make cultural property the subject of attack. That means one cannot fire rockets knowingly at cultural property. One could but then it would be an offence under this legislation. I hope it would not happen that cultural property would be the subject of attack. It will be an offence to use cultural property in military action. We discussed whether that meant using a significant building as a shield. The extensive destruction of cultural property will be an offence or stealing or vandalising cultural property. That is probably the pertinent part of it because it is the stealing and vandalising that is most offensive. That is captured in this bill. 
Under this bill penalties are spelt out including fines and prison sentences. It also makes it an offence to remove cultural property from a country or to assist somebody else in doing so. That is an offence not only for the person who would be removing pinching or nicking that item of cultural property but also for somebody who assists someone else in doing that. Again that is an important feature of this legislation. In this call I have outlined perhaps the most pertinent part of this legislation which is the high value that we in New Zealand place on cultural property and the respect we give to such property not only in our country but also in other countries. It is a proud moment for this House in acceding to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. I recommend this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I join with Jacqui Dean in saying what a pleasure it was to work through the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill in the Government Administration Committee under the able leadership of David Parker. I concur that we worked in a collegial manner. We even inserted a diagram into the commentary—one of the highlights of the time the select committee spent on the bill! I will not traverse the detail of the bill because I think Jacqui Dean has done that very well but I take a brief call on what the bill is about: criminalising actions such as stealing or destroying important cultural property in times of war prohibiting trade in cultural property removed from an occupied territory and preventing unauthorised use of the convention emblem as Miss Dean just talked about. 
It is important to give examples of what cultural property means in terms of this bill. Within the protocols and the convention we can see terms as listed under clause 4 like “monuments of architecture” “archaeological sites” “groups of buildings” “works of art” “manuscripts books and other objects of artistic historical or archaeological interest” “scientific collections” and “collections of books or archives” and then in turn the places where those things are stored: “museums” “large libraries” and “depositories of archives”. It is important for people to understand that that is what we are talking about. There is limited scope within this bill. It is not about every single thing—it is not about a fork a plate or a spoon that is taken out of a house; it is about items that are of historical and cultural importance. 
Why should we do something like this? It is important for New Zealand to be able to follow through on its obligations and on the conventions and the protocols we sign up to. To be honest something the select committee grappled with was how we make real the conventions and protocols that we sign up to. We need to be upfront. When we negotiate these things internationally New Zealand is part of a wider group. We want to be able to show that we are committed to preserving in this case cultural and historical items of significance. But when we have to turn that into real law it does sometimes present some difficulties to make it meaningful. In the commentary on the bill we see the ways in which we amended the bill to try to make it more real and meaningful and Jacqui Dean has already talked about that. In particular we ensured that we inserted the words “(whether in or outside New Zealand)” in clause 7(1)(a) to make it clear that a person could be charged regardless of where the alleged offence was committed. That slightly broadened things out. We did not want it to become so broad and so over the top as to be regarded as somehow ridiculous so we ensured that universal jurisdiction would not be created over the grave violation offences that are set out in the bill and new clause 9A does that. 
As the commentary on the bill says we were also concerned that the bill did not take into account the issue “if a person committed an offence in a Second Protocol Party state and then came to New Zealand New Zealand would not be able to prosecute the offender where he or she was a national of a state that is not a Second Protocol Party.” We have clarified that and there is a diagram explaining how that will happen. 
I think that the select committee has done its job here. It has improved the bill so that it can be implemented in New Zealand law and so that it is meaningful in New Zealand law. I thoroughly recommend it to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is strongly supportive of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. It is my experience that the destruction of significant cultural property of a people has a huge effect often on the whole national psyche. 
I think the problem goes even beyond what is in this bill. We can see the concern the Greek people have about the Elgin Marbles and the fact that some of them have been taken to the British Museum. We can talk to Sri Lankan Tamil people who feel they lost a huge cultural icon when the Jaffna Library was burnt down in the 1980s. We can look at the conflict in China involving the Uighur people Muslim people in the west of China who have recently been in some contention with both the Chinese Government and Chinese migrants in the area. One of the deep hurts that the Uighur people feel—and it motivates them today—is what happened during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. Young fanatical Maoists came in and destroyed much of the cultural property and Islamic icons in that area. The Tibetan people experienced the same thing with the destruction of some of the monasteries during the Cultural Revolution. It was deeply hurtful and is still felt today. 
Chris Carter mentioned the example of Iraq and I have wondered how Iraq might fit under this bill in the sense of culpability. In the mayhem following the US-led invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein US military camps were located in places like Babylon. Some camps were located on very important archaeological sites and destroyed them a bit. One could say that that destruction was part of armed conflict but a lot of the damage was done by Iraqis who wanted to make a bit of money by coming in and grabbing stuff that had previously been protected. I suppose that under the clause about being an accessory after the fact any armed force there would be responsible. US commanders who allowed that to happen could possibly be deemed to be accessories after the fact under this bill. 
Chris Carter also raised the example of Bamian. I am not sure how it would be covered under this bill because at the time the war was over. The Taliban were ruling with an iron hand over the Hazara people and were very hostile to Buddhism. As part of the Taliban’s hostility towards anything that was not Islamic—or not their particular variety of Sunni Islam—they destroyed the Buddhas which was a historic crime. I think that we all felt it too because those big Buddhas were such a cultural icon. But it was not done in the middle of armed conflict; it was done post - armed conflict so I am not quite sure how it fits under the bill. 
Although this bill is very good it does not necessarily cover the complete range of offences against the cultural heritage of peoples around the world. 
I think it is good that clause 9A has been put in so that people who destroy major features of cultural heritage can be prosecuted for the horrendous thing they have done. If for instance the Bamian incident did fit under the bill and if someone responsible for that offence against the Afghan people happened to be in New Zealand that person could be prosecuted. 
The Green Party is very supportive of this bill. It is a very progressive bill and we hope the whole Parliament will support it. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 As a member of the Government Administration Committee I have great pleasure in seeing the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill finally progress through the House. After all it is 55 years since the Hague convention was originally progressed in 1954. 
I can remember that when I first came to Parliament I was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of one Dianne Yates. The reason that the bill went nowhere was due simply to her chairmanship which was incompetent at best. I commend the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Chris Finlayson for his initiative in bringing the issue forward and progressing it and I am very glad that the people of New Zealand changed the Government so that we can allow the bill to move forward. 
As various people have talked in laborious fashion about the various parts of the bill I do not particularly want to revisit the issue. But I would like to say to my colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke—and I am pleased he supports the great work we have done—that none of the instances he offered are relevant in the context of the bill because we will not be applying it retrospectively. 
The other thing that is most important to understand is that the bill can begin to operate only if a territory has been occupied. So the wonderful collection put together by the de Beers that is in Dunedin’s museum—bits and pieces from all over the world that are available for all and sundry to see—is not at risk and I am very pleased about that. 
I think the example of the Bamian Buddhas being blown up and shot out of existence is more relevant. Whether Afghanistan was occupied by the Taliban is a moot question because the damage may well have been done by Afghani factions. Mr Locke also talked about the Sri Lankan example. Before he spoke I had been reflecting on how wonderful it was that the Buddhas in Sri Lanka or Buddha’s tooth in Kandy or the relics in Anuradhapura were left absolutely untouched by the war. I think it is a reflection of the respect of all the parties involved in that conflict that those religious icons and also the frescos in Sigiriya which are hugely important to Sri Lankan culture were left untouched. For that I am very grateful. I do not think we should involve ourselves in a partisan debate about whether a library was burnt down on purpose by the Sinhalese because it may well not have been. 
I think this bill will be really important in the context of future postings of the New Zealand military because under it they will now be held accountable. It has taken the better part of 55 years to progress and that is probably because a number of us would have had relatives at Monte Cassino and other theatres of war who removed artefacts under the guise of souveniring. That would now be prohibited under this arrangement. I also think our troops are far better educated now than they were at that time. 
At this stage on a Thursday afternoon I do not want to unnecessarily continue except to say that I am very very strongly supportive of the bill and I commend it totally to the House. I am sure it will be passed unanimously. Thank you. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to be here speaking on the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I start by acknowledging what Grant Robertson said and also Jacqui Dean regarding the collegial nature of the Government Administration Committee. 
Grant Robertson 
: The all-powerful Government Administration Committee. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: The all-powerful Government Administration Committee. I am really delighted to be a member of that committee. I also acknowledge the work of Minister Finlayson who is an outstanding Minister. I get good feedback about him constantly. I also acknowledge some of the comments Mr Carter made regarding the importance of actively protecting culture in New Zealand. New Zealand is a country that is rich in culture so I am delighted to be here speaking on the bill. 
In terms of the bill New Zealand ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in July 2008 under the previous Government as has been mentioned by many speakers. The convention was originally created in response to the widespread destruction of culturally significant artefacts and property during World War II. The key thing about the bill is that it will make New Zealand’s law compatible with the provisions of the Hague convention and therefore allow us to accede to the first and second protocols of the convention. 
In terms of the offences that are covered in the bill it is an offence to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or to encourage another person to do one of the following acts: make cultural property the subject of an attack use cultural property in a military action commit extensive destruction of cultural property or steal or vandalise cultural property. I also think it is very important—and the Minister acknowledged this—that the bill also makes it an offence to remove cultural property from a country or to assist another in doing so. 
I will make a couple of other comments about issues that were raised in the committee’s report when the committee was looking at the legislation. Mr Grant Robertson has mentioned one of them which was the insertion of the new clause 9A to ensure that universal jurisdiction would not be created over grave violation offences set out in the bill. 
 The other key aspect that the committee made an amendment on was by inserting the words “whether in or outside New Zealand” in clause 7(1)(a) to make it clear—and I think this is very important—that a person could be charged regardless of where the alleged offence was committed. The committee further recommended that the word “or” be substituted for the word “and” in clause 7(1)(c) which is a very important aspect of this change. I also acknowledge the outstanding diagram which has been acknowledged by Grant Robertson and Jacqui Dean and which was inserted into the legislation. 
In conclusion the bill is very important because it enables New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which was signed at The Hague in 1954. The bill is outstanding legislation for which the all-powerful Government Administration Committee deserves to take the credit. The bill is in the name of an outstanding Minister as well. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 A spate of cooperation has broken out in Parliament this afternoon to the extent that we have made particularly good progress. Rather than put that at risk it would seem an appropriate time for you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy to leave the chair. I seek leave for you to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise early. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears there is not. 
The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.