Volume 685 Week 28 - Wednesday 14 November 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 685 Week 28 - Wednesday 14 November 2012 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 14 November 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economic Growth and Unemployment—Statistics and Pure Advantage Green Growth Report 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Household Labour Force Survey is “the most rigorous form of measuring employment in the economy”; if so what were the Survey’s results for unemployment for the last four quarters? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. The household labour force survey applies a very rigorous test for whether someone is unemployed. They are counted as unemployed if they are actively looking for as little as 1 hour’s work a week. In the last quarter for example that included 33000 students who were looking for a job most probably for a part-time job alongside their study. To the second part of the member’s question over the last four quarters the number of people unemployed has gone from 151000 to 171000 back to 156000 and up to 170000. So as you can see the numbers bounce around quite a bit. Over the same period the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has actually dropped from 56000 to 50000. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he now concede that his Government’s economic policies have failed to lower unemployment in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No in the way that it is couched by the member. Obviously unemployment has risen but that has to be seen in the context of the overall environment that we have been operating in. We cannot wish away a global financial crisis but I would just say this. If we were theoretically to follow these policies—an emissions trading scheme that had a major impact on every New Zealand consumer and business reversing the company tax cut that this Government brought in putting a levy on every single New Zealand consumer to pay for Christchurch and a capital gains tax on a quarter of the housing market but on every single business in New Zealand and we came up with that novel idea of following Zimbabwe and Argentina in printing money—then that would really add to unemployment. By the way they are the Green Party policies. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is unemployment growing at more than 1½ times faster in New Zealand than across the average of the OECD over the last 4 years? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: At one level unemployment is coming from a lower base in New Zealand than in a lot of those countries. If you actually go and look at the OECD most of those countries are above New Zealand in terms of an unemployment rate and some of them like Spain are at very high levels—25 percent unemployment overall and 50 percent for young people. So that is one issue that is there. Countries have different ways of measuring things. But all I would say is if you go back to the unemployment benefit numbers and ask the obvious question—what were they in 1999 when the household labour force survey was at 7.3 percent and what are they today—the answer is that they were 150000 back then they are under 50000 here and they dropped by about 400 last week half of which were in Auckland. I might also add that if you were to go and look at the Jobs Online monthly report you would notice that they increased by 5.6 percent in October alone. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the fact that unemployment in New Zealand has grown at 1½ times the average in the OECD over the last 4 years using the statistics in the household labour force survey which the Prime Minister told us we should read; and is that not a sign that his economic policies have failed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the last part of the question no. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Prime Minister insisting now on using benefit figures rather than the household labour force survey which he previously described as the most rigorous form of measurement because just like Karl Rove on Fox News he likes to misuse math to make himself feel better? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well for one thing thank goodness David Parker is watching Fox News because he might learn something as opposed to that lefty stuff he seems to be embroiled in normally. Secondly no I am simply pointing out that the unemployment benefit is another way of looking at the economy and I think that makes sense. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have called Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that according to the standardised statistics produced by the OECD when he came to office New Zealand had the eighth-lowest unemployment in the OECD and it now has the fifteenth-lowest unemployment in the OECD and that that is a record of failure for his economic policies even in comparison with all those other countries that he tells us are doing so badly? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it is still in the bottom half of those. I would point out that if one was to go and look at the issues that New Zealand faces vis-à-vis other OECD countries I would challenge the member to find other countries that would not take New Zealand’s position over theirs. If you look at our country we have had a global financial crisis and the worst earthquake in a number of generations and this Government will be back in surplus within a few years’ time. This is a— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: A few years—how many? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I still think we are on track for 2014-15 actually. So there are a— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh still? Make up your mind. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it is not changing my mind David. You are changing your mind about whether you are challenging the leader or not but I am certainly not changing my mind. Do not worry Grant Robertson is supporting you because he was in the paper yesterday saying he supports David. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think that is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Speaker is not involved in any of that so we will not have any of that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of the failure of the Government’s economic plan to lower unemployment will he give renewed consideration to the green growth green jobs proposals coming from the Pure Advantage group which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Sir Stephen Tindall Joan Withers Jeremy Moon and Justine Smyth? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: One thing I will not be doing is ordering up a carbon-neutral printer like that member wants for his printing of money. No if you go and look at the policies that that member is advocating it is an emissions trading scheme that goes on every single business it is reversing the company— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members are entitled to raise a point of order. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The question was not about the policies of the Green Party even if the Minister failed to actually put them across properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because of the time that has elapsed I will let the member repeat his question so that members can hear it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of the failure of the Government’s economic plan to lower unemployment will he give renewed consideration to the green growth green jobs proposals from the Pure Advantage group which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Sir Stephen Tindall Joan Withers Jeremy Moon and Justine Smyth? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In terms of the first report no but my understanding is that another report is coming that might have some recommendations of interest in it. The Government will look at those. But I go back to the first point: a failure of economic policy in this country would be to reverse the company tax cut that this Government put in it would be to ban mining and all of the things that this Government is doing to ensure that there is job creation it would be to put a levy on every single consumer to pay for Christchurch it would be a capital gains tax on every business in New Zealand it would be an emissions trading scheme that put every consumer in a worse situation and it would be printing money so that every New Zealander— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think there has been sufficient answer there. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of the Government’s failure to reduce unemployment will he seriously consider the business case for New Zealand to embrace green growth and green jobs as advocated by the Pure Advantage group which includes successful New Zealand business people such as Rob Fyfe Phillip Mills Geoff Ross and Sir George Fistonich? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said in the answer to the last question there is a second report coming out as I understand it from Pure Advantage and there may be a number of aspects of that report that the Government is interested in looking at. The member will also be aware that the Government commissioned some work in this area of which some of those recommendations we are following. I simply go back and say that the member lives in a world where he is advocating policies that would be very negative for the economy but comes into this House and pretends they would have no impact at all. If that is the case then he needs to go back and read his economics books. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he seen statistics from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that show that the greener the industry the higher the job growth over the last decade and will he now reconsider his opposition to green growth strategies which are jobs-rich and good for the environment? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No in answer to the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question there have been quite a number of things that this Government has done in relation to effectively green growth and they would be including the very extensive insulation scheme that the Government had. It has also got an emissions trading scheme which encourages people to plant trees. There have been a number of other things but not the ones that that member is proposing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is Pure Advantage group not correct when it agues that mining the environmentally valuable Denniston Plateau for coal as proposed by Bathhurst Resources will have a detrimental effect on New Zealand’s economically valuable green brand; if so why on earth is the Prime Minister championing a special cause a special interest like Bathhurst Resources? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not think the member is right. If I remember correctly a few weeks ago that member was on television telling New Zealanders that it was a shocking thing that those who worked at the Solid Energy mine on the West Coast were losing their jobs at Spring Creek and yet on the other side of the coin he is now telling those very same miners that he does not wan them to get a job down the road at Bathhurst Resources. Is he seriously saying that because we have a small amount of mining activity relative to the size of New Zealand it somehow undermines our whole overall proposition as a good country to do business in and a good country to visit? I find that very hard to believe. If you look at Australia where the mining activity is very substantial it does not stop it from actually going out there and advertising extensively that Australia is a good place to do business a good place to live and a good place to holiday. 
Unemployment—International Comparisons and Initiatives Targeting Young People 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still think his Government is “on the right track”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Is he satisfied that there are only five countries with a worse record in the rate of increase in unemployed numbers and that they include Greece Spain and Ireland; if not does he not think it is time to change track? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As the member will have heard in answer to question No. 1 no I do not think it is time to change tack. Secondly that is coming from a completely different base. But let us just understand whether the following would do anything in terms of economic growth and that would be to ban sea-mining for minerals oil and gas; ban fracking; put a tax on aquaculture; ban all coalmining; and have a mineral export tax. That is a remit at the Labour Party conference this weekend. 
David Shearer 
: Is he satisfied that under his Government there has been an 80 percent increase in the numbers of unemployed more than twice the rate of Australia; if so does he think it is time to change track? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. Of course we are not satisfied when someone loses their job but let us understand what is happening in Australia. In Western Australia the last time I looked—it may have changed in the last few weeks—the growth rate was 14.5 percent. The growth rate in Northern Queensland where mining is substantially active was 9.5 percent. The fact is that there has been a recession on the East Coast of Australia for quite some time. So let us ask the following question: can you run a mining operation if you have a minerals export tax going through the roof where you have a ban— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s job and a Minister’s job is to answer the question not to start asking them in the middle of question time. I thought you would have stopped him when he said that. “Let’s ask ourselves a question”—well that is our job at the moment and his job is to get up there and precisely and tersely answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is reasonably made except in so far as the question did ask whether the Prime Minister believed that given certain events it was time to change track. The Prime Minister was identifying possibilities of changing track that he did not believe would work. But the member is correct. It should not be posed as a question because Ministers are meant to answer questions. But I think the Prime Minister had finished had he not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The parts of the Australian economy that are booming are the parts of the economy that are related to mining and at the Labour Party conference they want to ban mining and they want to join forces with the Green Party which wants to ban mining. I will bet you Damien O’Connor does not go down there on the West Coast— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Prime Minister has no responsibility for Damien O’Connor. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement “While unemployment remains high it is absolutely critical that we provide young people with adequate development opportunities. If we don’t we risk diminishing the potential of an entire generation of New Zealanders and I won’t accept that.”; if so why has the number of Modern Apprenticeships dropped by 2500 since he made that statement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I cannot accept the member’s number because I do not know whether it is correct or not in the way it was measured. And the history of this House indicates that numbers that come from that side are not always accurate. But there are just under 7500 fees-free Youth Guarantee places at tertiary institutions at the moment. There are 2800 fees-free places in 43 trade services. There are over 10000 fees-free places for 16 and 17-year-olds. A great deal of work has been done when it comes to young people— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question directly asked about Modern Apprenticeships. If he has all the information about everything else except Modern Apprenticeships that is a bit strange. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should know that actually he does not interject during a point of order especially a point of order by his leader. The Leader of the Opposition is correct. His question asked specifically about Modern Apprenticeships. If the Prime Minister had that figure it would be helpful but I think he has indicated that he does not have it. Therefore that should be the end of the answer. 
David Shearer 
: Is not Fran O’Sullivan right on the unemployment statistics when she says “For Key to simply shrug his shoulders on this score doesn’t cut it. … We owe it to the young people who are yet to even get on the employment ladder to be less ostrich-like as a nation.”; when will he change track to grow jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Three things. Firstly when it comes to young people the Government is engaged in a number of activities to support young people and that includes things like the 90-day probation period and the youth minimum wage which certainly help make them more attractive in the workforce. Secondly making sure their educational skills are better is critically important and we know that that was something that the Labour Government did not care about. Making sure that we have a number of programmes for them is critically important. We have been doing that whether it is through the Youth Guarantee or whatever it might be. Thirdly we know the Labour Party is not to be believed when it comes to youth unemployment because in the weekend Megan Woods was out there telling people that a quarter of all young people were unemployed. That is factually incorrect. And the fourth thing I would say is that I do not know whether the member saw—because he wants to quote Fran O’Sullivan—The Standard yesterday afternoon but on The Standard yesterday afternoon it said that if Fran O’Sullivan comes out and endorses David Shearer it will be the kiss of death. Well guess what was in the  
New Zealand Herald 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called the Leader of the Opposition. 
David Shearer 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Modern Apprenticeships have gone down on his watch and why is he not aware of that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because they have gone into a variety of other different courses. 
Economy—Return to Surplus Government Borrowing and Forecasts 
3. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is the Government making in getting back to surplus and reducing future borrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2012 showed an operating deficit before gains and losses of $9.2 billion. This compares with a deficit of $18.4 billion in the previous year about half of which was due to Canterbury earthquakes. Excluding earthquake costs the operating deficit for 2012 was $7.3 billion compared with $9.3 billion the year before. It has been important to support New Zealanders in difficult times through borrowing money and spending it through income transfers and public services but of course that cannot continue for ever. The Government has laid out a track to surplus in order to get on top of debt. 
Maggie Barry 
: What are the benefits of returning to surplus and minimising debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think one of the benefits assumed is that if we got back to surplus we could then have a spend-up in the fashion that the previous Labour Government did. But that is not actually correct. When we get back to surplus in 2014-15 it will allow the Government to start repaying debt resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and target more investment at priority public services. There is also another benefit to households and that is when the Government does have a credible track back to surplus and good management of Government expenditure all New Zealanders benefit from lower interest rates than would otherwise be the case. 
Maggie Barry 
: Since 2008 how has the outlook for future Government debt and expenditure improved? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has improved quite significantly despite the fact that we have had a recession and a slow recovery. Treasury forecasts showed in 2008 that New Zealand was on a track for never-ending deficits and Government net debt would reach 50 percent of GDP by 2020. In this year’s Budget Treasury forecast net debt in 2020 to be under 20 percent. So instead of being 50 percent of GDP decisions the Government has made will reduce that to 20 percent. Also Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is forecast to fall from 35 percent of GDP in 2011 to 30 percent of GDP by 2016 allowing New Zealand households and businesses to make their own decisions with more of their own money. 
Maggie Barry 
: What is the global outlook for growth and how does this affect New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a very good question. The consensus for global growth forecasts for 2013 has been revised downwards in the last 8 months for virtually all of our trading partners including Australia. For instance the IMF revised its growth expectations for the world economy from 3.9 percent to 3.6 percent for next year and in the euro area growth fell from 1.6 percent to 0.2 percent—a very significant reduction in the outlook for Europe. These kinds of reductions are likely to have some impact on the New Zealand economy. 
Hon David Parker 
: In light of the highest level of unemployment in 13 years will Treasury be revising its unemployment forecasts for the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update; if so will it also have to update its growth forecasts and tax revenue forecasts downwards? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would expect that Treasury will take into account the current circumstances and how they might affect the future outlook. The world economic outlook is a bit weaker as I have pointed out and the New Zealand economic outlook has been a bit weaker in this second half of the year but the member will have to wait and see like I will as to how that is reflected in the forecasts. 
Welfare Reforms—Availability of Jobs 
4. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 9 yesterday? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my statements but upon reflecting on them I should have said more about how quickly the job market is moving as some of those 300 jobs I mentioned yesterday at The Warehouse have already been filled. In fact I have just heard that The Warehouse has filled around 1200 jobs recently to get ahead of the coming busy Christmas period. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When she said that The Warehouse had jobs available between October and January suggesting short-term Christmas contracts was she also aware that the last time it advertised there were 1200 applications for 111 jobs; if so does she still believe that people are unemployed because they are not looking hard enough? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I think I put it in my primary answer we have also heard that there are 1200 people whom it has recently taken on but that is casual work as well as part-time and as well as full-time. It is quite recently so I am certainly saying that some of that work is casual to take it over the Christmas period. But as you say I think there are higher numbers of applications for some jobs than others. For example I got an email this morning from a guy who said that in Taupo recently he advertised two positions and received six applications three of which did not think they would pass the drug test two of which did not think they could start work at 7.30 and one of which did not bother coming back with the paperwork. To receive so few applications with so many out of work or unable to get work just does not ring true. The persons he required were unskilled labourers. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When she listed—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to be able to hear the member please. I want to be able to hear. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to be able to hear Jacinda Ardern. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When she listed Bunnings and New World as proof that there are jobs available was she aware that neither of the stores in question is open yet and one has not even been built and that the last time Bunnings advertised there were 800 applications for 70 positions and for New World there were 2700 applicants for 150 openings; if so does she still believe there are people unemployed because they are not looking hard enough? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a bit of a bouncy job market out there—a bit like me. You know it is a bit like the economy is grumpy like him; the job market is bouncy like me. Look the reality is that we have people getting jobs and we have people who then go off tomorrow. 
Grant Robertson 
: He’s grumpy you’re bouncy! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: He is grumpy I am bouncy—that is about the load of it. Let me give you an example. Just today we have had 26 new jobs come into Work and Income. We have probably had about the same number that have come off because they have been filled. The member can make assertions that I have said there is a job for everyone. There is not. It is tough out there. But I do say that you need to be looking so you can get some of those jobs that are there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I have just been accused of being bouncy and dopey in that last set of interjections. They could both be true but please when members interject “you” they are referring to the Speaker. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: When she listed that Brightwater was looking for 40 engineers was she aware that the same firm cut up to 40 jobs earlier in the year and that Taylor Preston which she also listed is a seasonal meatworks operating in the same industry where there have been up to 300 job losses since September alone; if so is the economy bouncy grumpy or just suffering from a lack of a plan from that Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member can get all uptight and angry but the reality is that jobs come on and jobs come off. That is the point I was making yesterday. The member can pretend that there are no jobs whatsoever out there; in fact we have had 1000 new jobs come into Work and Income just about every week for the last 12 months. That is the reality. No one is pretending it is perfect no one is saying it is ideal but I also do not think that the member getting uptight and angry about what jobs might or might not be there is kind of helping anyone either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Jacinda Ardern. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear Jacinda Ardern. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Which of her contradictory statements yesterday does she stand by—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the question. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Which of her contradictory statements yesterday does she stand by: that benefit numbers have doubled on her watch because of “some of the toughest times worldwide” or that her punitive welfare reforms are still justified because “there are jobs and people will get one only if they are looking.”? 
Hon Member 
: Someone might get one in the weekend. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I do think there may be a new job going this weekend and I wish the member luck with that. But look at the end of the day there are jobs coming on there are jobs coming off. It is tough. No one is saying that things are easy at all. I know that the member struggles to understand that but that is the reality. We have people coming on benefit; we have people coming off benefit. No one pretends that everyone who wants a job will get one today but the member may be lucky and get one this weekend if she holds out long enough. 
Visitor Visas—China Southern Airlines Frequent Flyer Scheme 
5. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is he satisfied that Immigration New Zealand’s visitor visa processing system is robust and effective; if so why? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. One hundred and seventy thousand visitor visas are processed annually by Immigration New Zealand and it has made substantial improvements from the mess that National inherited from the previous Government. To improve the system the Government is implementing by 2015 the state of the art Immigration Global Management System which will amongst other things improve visa processing and increase the use of biometric identity checks. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has he compromised the integrity of New Zealand’s overseas visa system by doing secret deals with China Southern Airlines in a secret meeting he held with China Southern Airlines’ representatives on 20 April 2012? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: There was no secret meeting with China Southern Airlines. I did have a meeting with China Southern Airlines. The representatives expressed to me some interest in increasing visitor flows into New Zealand which is a tremendous thing and yes there has been a deal struck with Immigration New Zealand and China Southern Airlines. That is going to allow high net worth individuals to come into New Zealand to ensure that we continue to grow our tourism benefits. In fact there will be some checks and of course that will mean that they still will need to get a visa and they still will need to meet health and good-character checks. Considerations will be met in terms of deeming—[ 
Interruption 
]; can I conclude—the evidence of funds and bona fides. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has he read a memo to him from Immigration New Zealand dated 11 June 2012 concerning visa processing facilitation that states “[China Southern Airlines] has also advised that the most important feature for their clients was avoiding the necessity to answer questions relating to financial backing and employment history and to provide evidence of these.”; how can he make any statements that this is more robust given that advice from that official? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I mentioned in the answer to the previous question we are indeed going to roll out this agreement with China Southern Airlines and it is important that we are going to review— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking this Minister about questions and issues that have happened this year not about what is being rolled out in the future but what is happening right now in respect of the 11 June memo that he got and the meeting on 20 April. He is talking about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has he read a memo to him from Immigration New Zealand dated 11 June 2012 concerning visa processing facilitation that states “[China Southern Airlines] has also advised that the most important feature for their clients was avoiding the necessity to answer questions relating to financial backing and employment history and to provide evidence of these.”? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Yes I am aware of that and that indeed is their opinion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he aware of concerns raised by an Immigration New Zealand official in an email dated 7 September 2012 that the risk of “imported criminality” from China is being “ignored in visa decision-making” in respect of a special arrangement being brokered with China Southern Airlines? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No I am not aware of that because the deal has not rolled out yet. I am looking forward to that deal rolling out and as I said before this will be reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure that it is robust and it is working as intended. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister concede that what is being alleged in these questions is happening right now and is he aware that an Immigration New Zealand official has described the proposed special arrangement with China Southern Airlines as setting a “very dangerous precedent” and “defers risk assessment to uninformed expedience”? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No I do not agree with those assertions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the public of this country have any confidence in the Minister responsible for Immigration New Zealand when such scandals—and this is one—are so numerous—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must proceed with his question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Big Ears is off again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the public have any confidence in the Minister responsible for Immigration New Zealand when such scandals are so numerous even to the extent of Immigration New Zealand’s intelligence risk and integrity division now raising concerns about what is happening about visa-checking processes or lack of them? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As a result of the recent Chinese student fraud I have asked immigration officials to look at their systems. Indeed they got PricewaterhouseCoopers in to look at their systems. That report concluded that their systems are pretty good but that there is room for improvement. They are working through those recommendations as we speak. My final comment is that this Government is focused on growing the economic returns for this country and that means not putting at stake the $9 billion that we get in from tourists every year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a memo sent from the Department of Labour to the Minister of Immigration dated 11 June 2012 titled “China Southern Airline Travel Facilitation” which contains a reference to a meeting between the Minister and the airline on 20 April and details of the proposed special visa processing arrangement and a second document dated Friday 7 September 2012 subject line “[China Southern Airlines] initiative” which outlines the serious concerns of an Immigration New Zealand official. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
White Paper for Vulnerable Children—Children’s Teams 
6. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What further announcements has she made on the Children’s Teams part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today we have announced that the second children’s team will be rolled out in Whangarei. We have chosen Whangarei for the second team because like Rotorua the community both needs it and is ready for it. Work will start straight away with the community of Whangarei to bring the children’s team together. 
Mike Sabin 
: How will these children’s teams bring together those professionals working closely with vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The children who are at risk of abuse or neglect need professionals who bring their expertise to the table and work in a coordinated manner putting the child at the centre of all decision making. I have just had a public meeting at lunchtime today on the white paper and there was someone there from Strengthening Families. She said that collaboration is one of the hardest things you can do but actually is one of the most effective for working with vulnerable children. 
Mike Sabin 
: How will the children’s teams work to better protect children in each community? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I said before these teams take this to the next level of child protection. They are working closely with Child Youth and Family but most important I think they are also working with those children who are at most serious risk of maltreatment and getting in early so that we do not see them getting hurt or being put in danger. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 the Hon David Cunliffe. Question No. 7 the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker. To the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —Minister for Economic Development: is he satisfied that the policy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the honourable member. I say to National Party members the noise is not reasonable. I cannot hear the question. Let that person who has not missed a call at some stage cast the first stone. We have all done it. I call the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question. 
Economic Growth and Unemployment Rate—Government Strategies 
7. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Is he satisfied that the policy initiatives undertaken by his Ministry are adequately tackling the problem of unemployment; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I think actually Mr Cunliffe was doing a bit of last-minute lobbying for the weekend. The Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think Ministers when answering primary questions should avoid that kind of unnecessary gratuitous comment. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was just trying to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No order! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: OK. Yes. The Government is undertaking a comprehensive Business Growth Agenda to help New Zealand businesses become more internationally competitive and have access to the six key ingredients they need to grow create jobs and be successful. To this end we are ensuring we are building better access to export markets we are investing to encourage innovation we are improving skills and safety within the workforce we are building the infrastructure that businesses need to thrive we are encouraging sustainable use of our national resources— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister should have noticed that the question asked “if not why not?” not “if so why?”. The Minister had answered the question—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! It was a primary question and it asked whether the Minister was satisfied. The Minister indicated that he was. Therefore there is no further answer required because the question goes on to say “if not why not?”. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following does he consider to be the greater concern for the New Zealand economy: inflation at 0.8 percent below the 1 to 3 percent target range or unemployment at 7.3 percent the highest in 13 years—in fact since the last time Bill English was Minister of Finance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Actually I think the bigger challenge for the New Zealand economy is the lack of understanding from some people as to the importance of giving businesses the opportunity to invest and grow their businesses in New Zealand not adding costs to those businesses and actually giving opportunities in areas such as oil and gas such as convention centres— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Casinos. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —absolutely Mr Peters absolutely—a range of things that we need to have to encourage businesses to grow. I think that is the biggest limitation and it dominates the other side of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which does the Minister consider is the more significant reason for the decline in New Zealand manufacturing from 26 percent of GDP in the 1970s to 14 percent in 2009 and 12 percent in 2011: could it be the high New Zealand dollar or policy settings that deliberately reinforce the interests of agriculture and finance at the expense of manufacturing innovation and export-led growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member is simply wrong in his analysis of what is happening in the New Zealand economy. In actual fact since this Government has been in office we have seen the long-term decline in manufacturing that he refers to halt and actually we have seen growth in the amount of exports from manufacturing—[ 
Interruption 
]—it is true; members should go and read their numbers—and growth in manufacturing over time. The simple fact of the matter is that the member’s—I have to say—adolescent picking of industries that should be promoted ahead of other industries is actually one of the causes of problems in New Zealand. We spend way too much time focusing on which single industry will save us. We actually need to encourage positive investment opportunities across the country and that is what we are doing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of any special meetings to discuss jobs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have received the report of a special meeting last night to discuss one particular leadership job. Reports are that there was a meeting of about a dozen people to discuss jobs it followed on from discussions with an expensive New York - based consultant and it was convened by one David Cunliffe MP. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Hon David Cunliffe. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! Order! The National benches will show a little discipline please. I want to hear the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister’s mathematical abilities— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Come on now the member is going to have further interjections if he carries on like that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What policies are in place to help New Zealanders aged between 18 and 34 whose real incomes have decreased by 8 percent since this Government has been in power or who currently make up close to half of the unemployed and around 40 percent of those leaving for Australia; and if he really believes that the manufacturing decline has been reversed why does he not say that to the people of Southland or to the Minister of Finance or any Government MP who has stood up the debate on the future of the Tiwai Pointsmelter to be held in early December? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I think there were about six legs to that question but I will focus on the youth question because it is a fair question to ask. Actually the Government is very very focused on creating opportunities for young people and I just beg the House’s— 
Hon Member 
: Not actually doing it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No it is doing a huge amount actually. We have created a thing called the Youth Guarantee scheme which supplies fees-free training for young people aged 16 and 17 and in fact there are now 7500 places from nothing a couple of years ago. We have also created 2800 fees-free places in 44 trades and service academies and next year we are rolling out 5500 fees-free levels 1 and 2 places for foundation learners of all ages. The good news is that if you look at 15 to 19 year olds fully 78 percent of all of them are now in education 12 percent of them are in employment and 4 percent are unemployed and not in any form of education with another 5 percent right outside the workforce. Those figures are actually a very significant improvement through the global financial crisis. 
Skycity Convention Centre—Outcomes 
8. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: Was he referring to the SkyCity Convention Centre which is the subject of an inquiry by the Auditor-General when he told the House “in relation to the International Convention Centre they have sought to stop which is the reason right now for 1000 less jobs in this country”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 Absolutely. I was referring to the estimated 1000 jobs involved in the construction of the proposed Auckland convention centre. That member knows as well as anybody else that her party has sought to stop the development of the convention centre at the cost of those jobs to the country. So the Greens have worked to block this initiative at exactly the same time they are calling for more jobs in New Zealand and the reality is you cannot constantly say you cannot do things. The reality is that that is lost on the Greens but it is actually not lost on everybody else. 
Denise Roche 
: Is he aware that the additional pokies that form part of that convention centre deal are likely to lead to a net loss of jobs as Australian research shows that because electronic gambling is capital-intensive and jobs-light it sucks spending and jobs out of other more job-intensive retail and tourism businesses? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well if the member is suggesting that there should be more gaming tables and fewer electronic machines I am sure she could send me a note to that effect and we will pass it on to the negotiators. 
Denise Roche 
: I seek leave to table a study  
Electronic Gaming Machines in Bendigo 2008—assessing their economic impact 
 prepared for the city of Bendigo which concludes: “Any shift in spending towards [electronic gaming machines] will clearly lead to a fall in employment.” 
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. 
Denise Roche 
: Do any of the 1000 jobs he says the convention centre would generate include additional police required to manage problem-gambling related crime and the prostitutes planned for a 10-storey brothel across the road or additional mental health workers needed to mop up the consequences of additional pokies; and when did crime and misery become the cornerstone of the National Government’s job plan? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well a couple of points there. Firstly they are the construction jobs for the convention centre—the 1000 jobs that I was referring to. The second point is I have to say that is a bit rich coming from a party that supported the previous Government to do exactly the same arrangement to establish the first Skycity convention centre in Auckland in 2004 which the New York consultant whom we were talking about before proudly opened and proudly endorsed. 
Denise Roche 
: Is he concerned that the expansion of the casino is likely to encourage more gambling from people like drug tycoon Tac Kin Voong who gambled $11 million in 6 months at Skycity making the casino $1.5 million in profits; if so would he consider supporting Metiria Turei’s Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill which would force the casino to return profits from the proceeds of crime? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In relation to the bill the member refers to I should draw the member’s attention to two laws that were passed in 2009 the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which already contain much of what that particular bill is I understand seeking to achieve. More broadly the opportunity of having a major convention centre in Auckland and the tourism benefits and the convention benefits it brings to New Zealand are very very significant. I appreciate that every time the Greens see an opportunity they want to stop it but the rest of us actually have to be focused on all the opportunities we can have to grow investment and jobs in this country. 
Teachers and Support Staff—Problems with Novopay Payment System 
9. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement “Yes I do have confidence in Novopay”? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 As a payroll system I do yes. But I fully acknowledge the frustrations that staff payroll administrators principals and many in the sector have had to put up with as the system has rolled out. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did he receive or review an implementation plan for Novopay before the new system was implemented; if so when? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: No there was not one single implementation plan with regard to Novopay. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who signed off on the implementation of the Novopay payroll system? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The recommendations to go live with Novopay came from the Novopay board. It made recommendations to me. Included in those recommendations were assurances that there were no major difficulties no tier 1 senior issues. I signed off and recommended that. It was implemented on the basis of that advice. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will employees who have incurred late-payment penalties or defaulted on any automatic payments—for example mortgage repayments—as a result of payroll errors receive any compensation either from the payroll provider or from the Government as their employer; if not why not? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The Ministry of Education has already made it clear that individual staff in the education sector who have suffered some economic issue because of their pay being not paid underpaid or something like that are able to contact the ministry and/or their school officer and they will be investigated and addressed. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question. He said they would be investigated. I asked specifically whether— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No his final words were “and addressed”. His final words were “they will be investigated and addressed”. “Addressed” one presumes means something. The member can dig further on what “addressed” means I imagine. 
Chris Hipkins 
: All right. Thank you Mr Speaker. I will have another go. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: He thinks he’s so smart. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! You can see—can I call on the Attorney-General— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: No you can’t call on me for anything. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. You can see the disorder the House gets into sometimes with unhelpful interjections. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While you were dealing with that I had an opportunity to review the question that I had asked previously. I did not use the word “address” at all; I asked whether there would be any compensation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member asked whether they would be compensated and the Minister’s answer was that the problems for an individual would be investigated and addressed. “Addressed” usually means doing something about it but that can be explored further I think. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will addressing the problem that has been identified by those employees who may have incurred late-payment penalties or fines etc. as a result of defaulting on payments include paying them financial compensation? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: No decisions about compensation have yet been made. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Can he give employees reliant on Novopay an assurance that they will receive their correct holiday pay prior to Christmas; if not what action is he taking to ensure that this happens? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I have an assurance and the Ministry of Education has issued a press release that assures that all those in the education sector will be paid as part of the normal end-of-year start-of-year holiday pay etc. It gives that assurance in the name of the Secretary for Education and the Ministry of Education. 
Global Positioning System Monitoring—Use for Offenders on Extended Supervision Orders Parole or Work Release 
10. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps has the Government taken to protect communities from high-risk offenders? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In August global positioning system (GPS) monitoring was introduced for high-risk child sex offenders on extended supervision orders and for offenders on parole with special conditions relating to their whereabouts. There are currently 25 high-risk offenders being monitored by GPS and dependent on judicial outcomes nearly 50 offenders could be monitored by GPS by the end of the year. This technology provides real-time monitoring of these high-risk offenders allowing the department to know immediately if one strays into an exclusion zone such as a park a playground or a school so that quick action can be taken. The offenders are monitored 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This technology is significantly improving the safety of the public and ensuring that offenders comply with the conditions of their sentence. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How could GPS be used in the future to improve prisoner rehabilitation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: From next month the Department of Corrections plans to start trialling the use of GPS to monitor prisoners on the Release to Work programme. To reduce reoffending by 25 percent we do need to have more prisoners engaged in that Release to Work programme and GPS will allow the Department of Corrections to do this by providing a greater ability to monitor the prisoners whilst they are outside the prison. 
Minimum Wage 2013 Review—Consultation and Criteria 
11. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Labour 
: When will he begin the process of consulting on the minimum wage for 2013? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Next week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I had not even called the Minister but his answer is very prompt. Such efficiency. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Government plan to change the consultation process and the criteria that are used for determining the minimum wage; if so how? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is looking at ways of streamlining consultation. Consultation is not a quantitative thing; it is a qualitative thing. The essence is to do the job properly and I am as an enthusiastic Acting Minister of Labour looking at all options. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the principles of fairness income distribution worker protection and work incentives be removed as criteria for determining the minimum wage for New Zealand’s lowest-paid workers? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said I am looking at improving the qualitative assessment and at this stage where there are matters going to Cabinet I am not prepared to get into that level of detail. 
Darien Fenton 
: If these criteria are cut back and submission processes also curtailed will there not be fewer and lower minimum wage increases in the future? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well as I said the member is dwelling in the realms of the hypothetical. I am looking at improving consultation— 
Grant Robertson 
: Where does that member dwell? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I dwell in the land of high emotional intelligence. I am most grateful too to the  
New Zealand Herald  
for those kind comments. I am looking at all those issues. The aim is to do the job right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well there you have it. 
Passports—Online Renewal Service 
12. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: How many New Zealanders have applied for a passport online since the launch of the Online Passport Renewal Service? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Department of Internal Affairs has received 2182 online renewals in the first 10 days of the service. Online renewals in the last week have made up around 16 percent of total adult renewals. Twenty-six thousand people have checked their eligibility to apply online indicating that many people plan to apply in the near future. This is very encouraging at this early stage and I am confident that the numbers will continue to grow. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are the benefits to New Zealanders of applying online rather than with a paper-based form? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Passport fees have been lowered and are lowest for an online renewal to encourage people to use this online service. The costs have been reduced by almost 20 percent for an online application. The turn-round with online services is also faster and although it can take up to 10 days it has averaged just 3 working days to date. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What reports has he received on New Zealanders’ satisfaction with the service? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I have received several reports including a number of comments saying the online service was very easy to use and made ordering a passport cheaper and a lot more convenient. One customer wrote saying he applied on a Saturday evening and got an email at 10 a.m. the following Tuesday saying the passport had been sent. This is great feedback and I am confident that New Zealanders are getting better public services from the Passports Office. 
Questions to Members 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Purpose 
1. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of the bill is to apply the civil forfeiture regime to casinos. Steven Joyce was wrong today to suggest that the legislation already applies. It does not. My bill will amend the definition of “unlawfully benefiting from significant criminal activity” to include casinos that knowingly and having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling and criminal activity derive a benefit from significant criminal activity. 
Denise Roche 
: Why did she write the amendment bill? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Casinos are widely known to profit from money-laundering and theft caused by gambling addiction. Private individuals are not entitled to retain profits from criminal activity and neither should casinos. This bill will encourage casinos to implement the best possible practices to protect against problem gambling and money-laundering and better protect small businesses and individuals from gambling-driven crime. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—Benefits 
2. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
: How will her Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill benefit the victims of crime? 
METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 I have read many reports over a number of years of community organisations and small businesses in particular being driven to the wall by the theft of huge amounts of money by problem gamblers who lose it at a casino. By including casinos in the Act and imposing on them the same obligation that others have to return the proceeds of crime these community groups and small businesses could look forward to having some of that stolen money returned to them. 
Denise Roche 
: What groups are particularly vulnerable to gambling-related crime? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: In 2008 the BDO Kendalls  
Not-for-profit Fraud Survey 
 found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity—some $180000 per person and that is just for those cases that were known. The real rate of theft from charities is much higher and many of those caught gambling with stolen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member has answered sufficiently. Really the supplementary question was barely within the Standing Orders. The member has responsibility for only her bill not for other matters. I could have ruled the question out. I have given the member a chance to answer it but really it is not within the Standing Orders. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is in relation to the bill and its relationship to the issues for victims— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Standing Orders provide for the member to be asked only details about her bill not her opinion on other matters to do with crime or the proceeds of crime. It must relate to only the detail of her bill. 
General Debate 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. For the record note that there is no written speech. I am not reading any speech. This is a speech that is given from the heart. 
I am very interested in history and I am particularly interested in the history of the Labour Party. That was why a couple of years ago Chris Auchinvole and I went to Blackball to learn all about the Blackball strikes. Darien Fenton refused to speak to us but one or two trade unionists were actually very pleasant. And that was why I was so interested to hear about the New Zealand Fabian Society seminar  
The Kirk Legacy 
 which we are told in this pamphlet was 3 years of courage and achievement. We have here dear old Norman as the centrepiece—I do not whether the photo was taken when he was shooting pigeons from the third floor of Parliament—we have a photo of Fred Dagg and we have a lovely photo of Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan a wonderful woman. It was my privilege to get to know her in recent years. She was treated appallingly badly by the Labour Party. Helen Clark treated her like dirt. Then we have a very nice photo of another person I really respected Bill Rowling a good man. He was a really very nice man also treated appallingly by his colleagues in the Labour Party. 
When I read this pamphlet I initially thought it was out of  
Private Eye 
 but apparently there is an organisation called the Fabian Society. It is organised by some historian—or self-styled historian—guy in Auckland who runs a dairy in Mount Roskill and I understand— 
Hon Annette King 
: So what’s wrong with that you snob? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —that it is mixture of myth-making and airbrushing people out of history. I would say this to “Her Honour”: just keep quite and listen. 
The introduction was by this fellow called Gerard Hill. I was very surprised that Michael Bassett was not invited to speak. He wrote a very good book on the history of the Labour Party and a very splendid book I thought called  
Working with David 
—was it working with David or against him—a history of the Lange Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh it was Cunliffe’s book. Then we had a contribution “Big Norm Big Labour and Big Ideas” by Colin James who was an apologist for the luvvies then and is now. We had a contribution “Mururoa and Nuclear Power” from Kennedy “I charge you with ecocide” Graham a lovely guy; it is just a shame he immatures with age. Then we had Bob Tizard 90 and going strong. And then “The Future”—the future belongs to Jacinda Ardern the Labour MP. 
Like all Labour publications or Fabian Society publications it is replete with falsehoods. For example we are told that Labour established the Accident Compensation Corporation when we all know that it was Jack Marshall’s Government in 1972 that started it up when David Thomson was the Minister of Labour. I see that some of the third-grade apparatchiks on the other side look confused because they do not know their party’s history. Then we are told that the Treaty of Waitangi process which Norman Kirk promoted has been an unqualified success. Well we all know that the years 1999 to 2008 were a disgrace in Treaty settlement terms because they achieved nothing and we also know that Mat Rata walked out of the Labour Party. Norm Kirk established our international environmental reputation? Well that is rubbish because Jack Marshall appointed the first Minister for the Environment. “The establishment of a New Zealand national shipping line was also a statement of independence.”—and also economic lunacy! Then we have the “inspiring action” of Martyn Finlay—and they could not spell Martyn Finlay’s name properly. It is in the pamphlet as M-a-r-t-i-n F-i-n-l-e-y when anyone who knows anything knows that it is M-a-r-t-y-n F-i-n-l-a-y. 
So what we actually have is a most amazing attempt to airbrush people out of history. As I say where was Michael Bassett? Where was Roger Douglas who was such a fine Postmaster-General in the time of Norman Kirk? These people were here as Winston would know. These people could have made a contribution. 
So what sort of seminar are they going to have when they look at the years of David Shearer in years to come? This history of the Labour Party from 1972 to 1975 brings us to the history that will be occurring at this weekend’s Labour Party conference because David Shearer and the leadership are history. Their future propagandists will not have to airbrush out Shearer’s loyal troops because they will be moved to the sidelines just as Labour moved Peter Fraser to the sidelines for many years. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 On “Planet Labour” I live in a country where we have got the highest unemployment in 20 years. It is the highest rate in 13 years since Bill English was last Minister of Finance. I live in a country where despite the National Party promise to stop people going to Australia 180000 people have gone which is more than the population of Hamilton of Napier and Hastings combined or of Dunedin and Invercargill combined. I live in a country where the Government promised 170000 new jobs and the number of jobs is going in the wrong direction. I live in a country where youth unemployment is high where Maori and Pacific youth unemployment is over 20 percent and where the base level of unemployment amongst Maori and Pacific is 15 percent. I live in a country where we have the second-worst current account deficit in the world after Greece and next year it will be the worst in the world. And I live in a country where exports are down. 
On the other side of the land we have got the National Party saying it is all going well. Well what do you have to call those members? What is that? Well I think after Paula Bennett’s episode today you would have to say that that is fantasyland. We heard Paula Bennett today rewriting the next episode the next reissue of Disneyland. We have already had “Grumpy Growth English” saying grumpy—what the heck does “grumpy growth” mean? It is fantasyland. Then we had Paula Bennett saying that unemployment is bumpy. 
Hon Members 
: Bouncy. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Bouncy. Sorry bouncy. I cannot close my eyes when I say that. We heard her saying that the unemployment figures are bouncy when the quarterly employment survey has had filled jobs going down. The household labour force survey has been going in the wrong direction for three quarters in a row and unemployment is terrible after 180000 people have gone to Australia. 
So we have got “Grumpy” and we have “Bouncy”. Well I thought: who is “Dopey”? Then I thought that Mr Speaker will not let me say that anyone is dopey but I have to say that it was a dopey idea to improve educational outcomes by increasing class sizes. Unfortunately there are two people with responsibility for that: Bill English and Hekia Parata. So I will not call anyone “Dopey”. 
Then of course what is Mr Key? Well he is either “Surprised” or “Forgetful”; I am not sure which. He was surprised that unemployment was going up— 
Grant Robertson 
: “Sleepy”. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh “Sleepy”? No I think it is “Surprised” or “Forgetful”. Business and Economic Research Ltd said unemployment was going up. ANZ National Bank said it was going to go up over 7 percent over time. “Forgetful”—well we have got Dotcom. Remember the brain fade over that. He cannot even remember where he stood on the Springbok Tour—all those important years—or on the drinking age or on anything else. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Who’s “Snow White”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was asked by someone “Who’s ‘Snow White’?”. Who is “Snow White”? I had to think for a while but— 
Hon Member 
: Judith. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Exactly! It is Judith Collins who is trying to reinvent herself. She was “Crusher Collins”; now she is soft. She is lining up for the future competing against Steven Joyce for when John Key gives up tired of his job. He does not like being surprised or being characterised as forgetful and he is looking pretty disenchanted with the job. 
We have got all these problems in the country and the Government will not do anything about the serious issues. It will not remove the tax bias in the economy. ASB just today said that the favourite investment class of New Zealand is again rental housing in Auckland. We need a capital gains tax to get money into the productive sector. We need universal KiwiSaver. We need a Government that is willing to help our exporters and the people who are employed in those industries by doing what the IMF and others are saying is necessary. If you are a small trading nation you have to pay attention to your exchange rate as well as to inflation. But National? No it says it is on the right track. Who else thinks that? 
On the other side of the House it is fantasyland it is Disneyland and it is time that those members acknowledged that this economy is not working for ordinary New Zealanders. They are leaving in their droves—1000 in a month to Australia. There are declining rates of homeownership because people cannot afford their own house in part because they are competing against residential landlords. It is time to change track. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer to a supplementary question from Mr Hipkins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I inadvertently answered one of Mr Hipkins’ questions incorrectly. It was one about compensation for someone who may have suffered penalty because of their missed mortgage payment. I apologise to the House. I misheard the question. I interpreted it in a different way. In fact the Ministry of Education has consistently made it clear that it would reimburse any staff member who has been financially disadvantaged by the transition to Novopay such as incurring penalties on a missed payment. Thank you. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Only three sleeps to go until the Labour Party conference and I do not know who is more excited—us or the Labour Party caucus—because on that day we are going to find out what is really going to be the future for the Labour Party and I predict it is going to be very very dismal. But these people are like kids waiting for Christmas. David Cunliffe cannot wait to unwrap the Christmas presents Grant Robertson is already nibbling on the cake in the fridge and of course once again Clayton Cosgrove is not going to get the present he wants because he is the one person who is not being named in the leadership speculation. I do not think it is any surprise that their party is saying that they are going to have to get their caucus to swear an oath of allegiance during leadership competitions. But I do not think there is a single oath that could bind David Cunliffe because he is to loyalty what Taito Phillip Field was to honesty. So quite frankly I think these guys are in massive trouble. It is going to be a very interesting weekend. 
But another very interesting factor this weekend is going to be the debate around the policy remits that the Labour Party is putting forward. We have heard a lot from these people today about job creation and their great laments about what they think is going on in the economy but when David Parker spoke the only idea we heard was a capital gains tax. That is their prescription for getting the New Zealand economy back on track. So they are focusing all their efforts on tearing each other apart in a fruitless thankless leadership competition. 
The guy I feel sorry for frankly is David Shearer because David Shearer is a decent man. He is too good for these guys quite frankly. He is a person who is doing his level best but these guys just quite frankly do not appreciate a quality leader when they see him. 
Eleven of these people were meeting with David Cunliffe last night. They were wandering around the members and guests’ dining room looking for a place to plot. They very rarely go up there so they did not actually know where they could find a private room. There they all were all the lefties. They were just there from the meeting with Helen Clark. Jacinda Ardern was there Parekura Horomia was there Clayton Cosgrove was not invited because he is not in the Cunliffe camp Sue Moroney was there Ruth Dyson was there and they were doing the numbers. They were circling around working out how they were going to install the man whom they cannot stand as the leader of the Labour Party. 
If you want to know the reality of it you want to read the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial today because it says that David Shearer is a very decent man and that he has actually got a personality that appeals to New Zealanders unlike some of the other leadership contenders. So these guys are really in a cleft stick there because they have got a leader whom they do not support who is fundamentally a decent man and a decent bloke. The only alternative for them is a guy they cannot stand. And who are they going to put in? 
The fact is I do not think anyone over there has got the guts to stand up and take the leadership when it is on offer. I predict what will happen is that David Shearer will ride this through and continue as the leader of the Labour Party because none of those people are going to seize their chance. That is what you have got to do in politics. Grant is all talk but it will not happen. 
If you are really worried you should be because when you read this list of Labour Party remits it is all about banning stuff and stopping jobs. So here we go. What are they going to do? They are going to nationalise any partially sold assets. That is going to be up for debate so it will be interesting to see how they go on that. They are going to ban seabed mining for minerals oil and gas. They want to ban fracking. They are going to ban all coalmining. These are the basic ideas from the Labour Party base. 
But there are some good things here according to their base. They want a SuperGold card for transport for under-21s and at the same time they are going to lower the voting age to 16 and make Te Reo compulsory for everyone under 15. They are also going to bring back so-called healthy food in schools. They are going to ban companies that do not pay a so-called living wage from winning Government contracts. Well that is going to be something that Clayton Cosgrove is really going to struggle to understand. So when you look at what we have got here—oh what else have they got? Direct KiwiRail as to who must win its tenders and raise the age of superannuation to 67 for everyone except Maori. 
So if those are the ideas that are coming out of the Labour Party base— 
Hon Member 
: No they’re coming from your research unit. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —do you really think when you mix that together with the Green prescription for printing money that that is going to be a path for getting the New Zealand economy going? More important— 
Hon Member 
: Show us the bit of paper you’re reading from Jonathan. I bet it’s not a Labour Party document. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No that is not from the National Party research unit. These are your policy remits for debate and decision. There is not one idea in here for getting the economy going. If you look at the facts National has got the economy going in the right direction—halve the deficit back into surplus by 2014-15. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Taking political advice from “The Maestro” of Mt Albert is a bit like learning humour from Chris Finlayson. Chris Finlayson has so little to say about the National Party that he spent the whole of his speech talking about the Labour Party and this member the “Minister for Cigarettes” the brain of Mt Albert is content to bad-mouth Labour while Rome burns. 
New Zealand is burning. Jobs are burning. Manufacturing is burning. Thousands of New Zealanders are leaving and the ostrich economists on the other side pretend nothing is wrong. This is not about them or about us. This is about New Zealanders who cannot pay the bills who cannot support their families who cannot find a job. As Jacinda Ardern pointed out they are the thousands upon thousands who have queued up for jobs at supermarkets and fast-food chains because that is all that they could find. And what does this Government say to those New Zealanders? “You are lazy. You are not trying hard enough.” Which one of the 2700 Kiwis queuing for 100 supermarket jobs was lazy? The 2600 who were back in the queue? Do not insult New Zealanders members. Do not insult their hard work. Do not insult the belief of those who are still in New Zealand that there might be a future. 
Unemployment is at 7.3 percent. That is the worst in 13 years. It is the worst since the last time Bill English was the Minister of Finance. It is up 74 percent since National took office. John Key promised 170000 new jobs. What have we got? We have got 175000 more unemployed—175000 people looking for work. The jobless rate is up 65 percent. Underemployment people who are just making do with part-time work is up nearly 40 percent. The number of people on the dole is up—wait for it—116 percent. 
Is it the rest of the world’s fault as National has said? Well it really cannot be because the increase in New Zealand’s unemployment has been one and a half times that of the rest of the OECD. So it cannot be the rest of the world dragging us down; we are dragging them down. 
Just this morning the retail trade figures showed again that grocery spending—the basics—is down 60 million bucks in a quarter or nearly 8 percent. People cannot feed their families and National is content to make bad jokes about members of this House. No wonder the public is losing confidence in the institution of Parliament sadly and certainly New Zealanders are increasingly disappointed in this Government. 
So what is the bigger problem? Is it inflation that is below the target range or is it unemployment that is through the roof? And if it is inflation why will those members not modernise a monetary policy framework that was written last century and flies in the face of the global financial crisis? Why are they happy to subsidise agriculture like through irrigation subsidies and wipe out the emissions trading scheme giving farmers a free ride and pollution subsidies while jobs burn manufacturing closes and thousands of New Zealanders are leaving? 
We are here on this side of the House we are here together as a team because we are not prepared to draw down the curtain on New Zealand. We are not prepared to give up on our country. That is what brings us to work every day and the difference between this Government’s “vision” and ours is stark. Its vision is a dumb economy vision of basic pastoral agriculture open-cast mining and fat cat bankers while ordinary New Zealanders are fleeing from their country cannot feed their families and cannot find a job. New Zealand wants a smart green economy with the jobs of the future that pay good wages and build smart products and services that people will pay the world for. We have got nothing against agriculture—it is our backbone—but it is not enough and just milking a few more cows or mining a bit more coal is not going to change the fundamental decline of our economy. 
These are serious issues for serious times. They are not a laughing matter. There are real people hurting and it is the future of our country on the line. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Sometimes it is the little things that happen around here in Parliament that tell us about what is really going down here and so it was last night when Government members grabbed a bite to eat in the members’ dining room. It was like watching the great Messiah gather with the disciples for that Last Supper. 
It begins with David Cunliffe confidently strolling in at 6.30 smiling like the Cheshire cat in search of his cabal of close colleagues. He realises he is in the wrong place but as one to never admit the errors of mere mortals makes quiet conversation and exits through the next door with conspiracy all over his face. Not a minute passes and in come Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins in search of Mr Cunliffe. We politely give them directions and advise them that we are signed-up members of the “Nats for Shearer” club. They guiltily slink off through the door. Next scurry in Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. They are much more sheepish in seeking out their messiah but we again helpfully direct them to the correct room. Clare Curran Ross Robertson and Parekura Horomia are the next group of lost disciples although going by their looks I would be a little bit worried that one of them is indeed the Judas. 
So what are we to make of these goings on? The first is that Labour cannot even organise a proper coup without the help of National MPs. One would not trust those members to organise a booze-up in a brewery let alone a change of leadership. How can Labour members pretend they are capable of running the country when they cannot even run themselves? The second is that the end is nigh for Mr Shearer. The question now is only a matter of when not if. The third is that the battle for the soul of the Labour Party is between the “ABC” club—the old guard like David Parker and Trevor Mallard—and the new young disciples of David Cunliffe like Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins. The fourth is this: this weekend’s Labour conference is going to be all about just one thing: leadership or rather the lack of it. Why on earth would debating the constitutional changes over leadership be the key item on the agenda when your leader is languishing in the polls and hanging on by the end of his fingernails? 
But Labour’s problems are actually much deeper than leadership. It is just not credible for Labour to say it is all for jobs and then to oppose every realistic initiative for job creation whether it is  
The Hobbit 
 the International Convention Centre aquaculture mining or irrigation projects. It is not credible for Labour to shed crocodile tears about housing affordability and then promote monetary policy changes that will only drive up interest rates and the cost of housing. Nor is it credible for Labour to wail about export growth and then propose new taxes and new charges that will sock our export sector between the eyes. 
My advice to the disciples of both Mr Cunliffe and Mr Shearer is that before you pick your messiah you have got to get your gospel sorted out. The real challenge is for the Opposition to put up a united credible alternative plan. The problem for Labour members this weekend is that they are so focused on themselves and their internal squabbles that they have absolutely nothing to offer the people of New Zealand. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 With the next climate change conference less than 2 weeks away in Doha New Zealand has wilfully turned its back on the rest of the world. We have turned our back on our moral and political obligations. We are now guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Under this Government New Zealand has turned down the wrong road. We have entered weak targets that are unilateral conditional and informal and have ignored the pleas from other countries to make a formal commitment. 
We have turned away from the undertaking of the developed countries in the Framework Convention on Climate Change to take the lead with immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we are repudiating a legally binding second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol committing ourselves to voluntary pledges instead. We have weakened the emissions trading scheme to the point of oblivion claiming it to be a “Rolls-Royce” model that can be revved up to suit the circumstances but leaving it with no credible pathway ahead and piling up fiscal debt for future generations. We are missing a critical opportunity to move to a high tech competitive economy that promotes green investment and green jobs. 
We are guilty of our proportionate share in guaranteeing dangerous climate change. Dangerous climate change is a temperature rise of over 2 degrees yet voluntary pledges to date under the convention commit us to 4.2 degrees. That takes us beyond danger territory into possibly catastrophic climate change. It invites tipping points to the ecosystem and the biosphere of which we have stunningly little knowledge. 
Most telling of all our two national leaders in climate policy the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change Issues are guilty of argumentation that can be seen only I conclude as intellectually dishonest. I acknowledge their personal integrity so I call upon them to show us that this is not the case. 
Let me elaborate. The convention of 1992 lays down a division between North and South between the developed and the developing world. The North in light of its largest share of historical and current global emissions must take the lead with immediate action in reducing emissions while the South is allowed to grow emissions to meet its development needs. This distinction still applies until the framework convention of 1992 is supplemented by a global legal agreement with binding obligations to reduce emissions by all countries. That will be in 2020. 
For a transition period of 2013-19 the North/South distinction still remains. Yet this Government assures the public that it is “joining up with 85 percent of global emissions” in going the voluntary route with our “Asia-Pacific trading partners”. Well of course we are because most of the 85 percent are in the South with no obligation to reduce as yet. The other 15 percent are the Kyoto group of which we should be part which are taking on binding commitments under the second commitment period. That includes Australia. The fact that the US Canada and Japan are not does not absolve us from our own obligation. 
There is it seems to me a touch of intellectual dishonesty in the 85 percent argument. There is a risk here no doubt unintentional of misleading the public because it offers a false reassurance that it is at odds with the 1992 legal framework. We should be ashamed yet this Government is not. 
The Minister’s highest skill level was displayed in the House yesterday when he justified his climate policy by flourishing a photograph of some Romney sheep. He needs to understand that our sheep industry although less emissions-intensive than elsewhere emits more than it should and more than it needs to. Welshing on Kyoto and weakening our emissions trading scheme loses the opportunity to incentivise agriculture to be more climate-friendly. Rather than attempt theatrics the Minister should recall the Stern Review which said that with 5 to 6 degrees warming which is “a real possibility for the next century” abrupt and large-scale climate change projects estimate an average 5 to 10 percent loss in global GDP. We have to be wilfully blind to allow ourselves to get into this indefensible position—indefensible before the court of international opinion indefensible in the eyes of the New Zealand public. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I was intrigued by the talk this afternoon by David Parker about unemployment. I wanted to maybe flick the House a few observations of my own. One of those observations is particularly about Maori unemployment which is not 20 percent as Mr Parker said in this House. It is unfortunately 15 percent. One of the reasons why we do have and always have had a very very large and shameful Maori unemployment rate is that we are actually very very young. Our youth population is very very large and it is one of the reasons why we have such a high unemployment rate and such other high rates of low educational standards. 
But I want to say that when people have a go at us on this side of the House for our so-called appalling 7.3 percent unemployment rate I want to reply by saying that Argentina the UK Sweden the Philippines Peru Paraguay Israel Greenland and Finland are all between 7 percent and 7.9 percent unemployment. I am not saying that it is great to have a 7 percent unemployment rate but I am saying that what people need to do is actually look very seriously at the world economy and at what effect that has had on our country and others around the world. Spain has 25 percent unemployment Greece has 25 percent unemployment Portugal has 15 percent unemployment and Ireland has 15 percent unemployment. Those figures show that the world economy did tank and it has taken a while to get back on track. 
New Zealand is no different from any other country in the world. We have our struggles. I know that there are other parties and I respect what they say in terms of where they want to go in terms of where they want to print money and do whatever. But at the end of the day we are the Government and we have to make some calls on what we do. I am absolutely glad that we do have a National Government in charge of the economy because the National Government the National Party are the only ones that have shown in the past that when there are bad times out there who do you call? Not ghostbusters of course but you call on the National Party because it has experience in running the country and in running the country in bad times. 
I want to also make this point quite clear. It is another completely different issue. There are those of my culture who continue to shout at the top of their voices that we do not recognise the white man’s law and in the same breath in court they use that excuse for their own criminality such as the growing and the supplying of cannabis to our community. This is a growing concern of mine that people—our people Maori people—are standing up in court and saying: “I don’t recognise the Pakeha law. I don’t recognise the white man’s law.” and it is because they are using their culture as an excuse for their own criminality. I am really really concerned about those people. These are people who supposedly say they are leaders in our community. My message to those people who are no more than just petty criminals—that is all they are—is to get off this bandwagon and stop using our culture which is a beautiful culture which is a magnificent culture for your own criminality. Kia ora. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am glad that the speaker who just preceded me Tau Henare mentioned the quote “At the end of the day we are the Government.” and that is absolutely correct. Finally a member on that side of the House is willing to stand up and take responsibility for what is the highest unemployment this century. We have asked questions in this House and rightfully so because it is a deadly serious matter. And what have we heard from members on that side of the House today? Chatter about who was having dinner with whom. It is an insult an absolute insult to New Zealanders who are struggling to find work that all that side of the House can do is make jokes at a time when people are suffering. 
In fact if the worst insult that the Minister for Social Development can level at me in the House today is that I am uptight and angry about unemployment then that would be the most accurate thing she has said today. I am and I would hope that the Minister for Social Development might be as well but unfortunately not. Instead when you ask the Minister for Social Development why it is that unemployment benefit numbers have doubled on her watch what is her answer? Her answer is the economic recession—“The toughest times worldwide.” If you go on then to ask her whether or not it means that her punitive welfare reforms are justified and fair given the economic situation we are in she will respond with “There are jobs and people will get one only if they look.” This is a Minister who is trying to have it both ways. On one hand it is not her fault that people are on the unemployment benefit because of the economy; on the other she is completely justified in introducing punitive sanctions—57000 sanctions used per annum. That is double what were being used under Labour when benefit rates were lower. The Minister cannot have it both ways and yet she is. 
There are 50000 people on an unemployment benefit who are looking for work and to have the Minister claim that they are not is an insult. There are 174000 unemployed people looking for work who were just insulted by that Minister today. There are 142000 who are underemployed who are looking for more work but cannot find it and therefore are probably struggling to put food on the table. But apparently according to that Minister they are just not looking very hard either. This Minister who tried to come down to this House and justify her rationale that there are jobs for those who are looking decided to do so by giving us a few examples. The Warehouse she told us was looking for seasonal employment. Well I used to be one of those seasonal workers at The Warehouse. I know that those jobs end. And in fact when they did advertise full-time jobs there were 1200 applications for 111 jobs. The next best example she could come up with was New World—not even built yet—in Paraparaumu. In fact I understand the walls are not even up but she was already crowing that that would bring about new jobs. Well when New World advertised recently for 150 jobs 2700 New Zealanders lined up to try to get those jobs. 
New Zealanders are desperate to find work and that Minister’s claim that they are just not looking hard enough is indicative of the kind of approach that this Government has been taking to an economic crisis and a crisis of jobs: the stand back and wait the “She’ll be right.” the market will fix it hands-off approach. For 4 years that approach has failed New Zealanders and it is only good and right that David Shearer called on that Government today to change track. When the facts are presented the Government should change its mind about its plan whatever that plan is because clearly it is not working. But instead what have Government members done? Well if they cannot improve the economy all they can change is social security and that is the injustice of all of this. To say that all the responsibility should go on the job seekers who are fulfilling their end of the social contract and looking for work while that side of the House throws their hands up when it comes to the economy is an absolute outrage and it is just not right. 
I know that this weekend Labour will continue to be talking to its values—that is a fair and just society where people get a fair break. That is what New Zealanders need right now and that is why they are marching away from that Government in their droves. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 After that speech by Jacinda Ardern I think that we are starting to see a new leadership contender emerge because that was the most energetic speech I have heard all afternoon from the Labour Party. I have been waiting for about half an hour for David Shearer to take the stand and have a go in the general debate as he usually does. I actually enjoyed watching the Labour Party last week because it was the most sad disappointed heads-buried-in-their-desk performance from Labour MPs watching their leader that I have ever seen and that is how you know that the Labour Party is looking for a leadership change. 
During question time we had the three Davids on their feet. We had David Shearer trying his best trying not to stutter 10 times throughout his questions and not quite succeeding trying to hold on to his job. Then we had David Parker asking some questions as well. David Parker is always the professor the pointy-headed professor doing his best with the numbers but he had to drop out last time. He had to drop out last time and probably is doing so again this time round. And then we had David Cunliffe—David Cunliffe the great messiah. He is growing a beard again. Have we all noticed that? What does that mean? What happened last time David Cunliffe grew a beard? It was leadership time; that is when he last grew a beard. David Cunliffe is growing a beard again and I think David Shearer should be worried about that. But we had the three Davids on show on performance trying to show their colleagues what they are made of. 
We have got the big conference this weekend coming up as well. Do you know what is interesting about this conference? What is interesting about this conference is that that is when they start to adopt their new rules. These new leadership rules are when they start to have members having their say. 
So what are members of the Labour Party saying about their leader? They are about to give Labour Party members a bit of a say in their leadership. Here we go there is a great website called The Standard. It is full of Labour Party members spouting their views. Here is one: “David Shearer has simply shown time and again that he is not up for the job. He can’t handle the stress he can’t think on his feet and he doesn’t have a solid set of beliefs to give him a firm footing when he stands up on issues.” How about another one? “I should have listened to Brian Edwards and to that little voice inside that was telling me Shearer was unsalvageable as talent. … it is that hamfistedness that has finally been the deal breaker for me. I just can’t imagine how David Shearer could survive an election campaign …”. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their current leader. That is what Labour Party members are saying about their leader whom they are about to have a say on. 
And what about this Brian Edwards? What do we know of Brian Edwards because David Shearer likes to say that it is just bloggers talking to bloggers. I do not think Mr Brian Edwards would consider himself a blogger. Brian Edwards happens to be the biographer for “Dear Leader” for “Auntie Helen”—for Helen Clark. Brian Edwards was also the media manager the person who did all the training. What does Brian Edwards say? He says: “… Shearer is harming rather than helping Labour’s cause and [so much so] that he cannot continue to lead the party.” 
What else do we know about Brian Edwards and Helen Clark? Helen Clark is in the country at the moment. Those members want to deny it. They want to deny it but I was there. I was in the dining room; I saw them walking through the dining room. I saw David Cunliffe come through then Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern put their heads round the corner. They scuttled off again but in came Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford. Darien Fenton is one we should watch. She is the union powerbroker at the moment. Darien Fenton is actually the union powerbroker. Andrew Little thinks it is him. Andrew Little thinks it is him but it is actually Darien Fenton. So these are the members of the Labour Party who David Cunliffe had trotting along to the little meeting and Helen Clark was in the country too. We know what texts from New York are all about—they are about when the leadership comes around. 
Jacinda Ardern wants to say that we are joking too much. And yeah we are having a bit of fun at those members’ expense but they are about to change their leader. But I want to tell the House what is a real joke. Here are the Labour Party policy proposals for the weekend. This is scary stuff; this is no joke. These are the policy proposals that Labour is proposing on the weekend. A financial transactions tax. You know if we cannot earn more money through revenue let us just tax people more. That is a Hone Heke tax as Hone Harawira would probably say. A universal child benefit so millionaires can get paid for having kids. Well I think that is something Kim Dotcom would quite like too. There is 52 weeks’ paid parental leave. Not content with costing us half a billion dollars more in paid parental leave for 26 weeks those members want to move it to 52 weeks. They want to ban fracking they want to ban seabed mining they want to ban certain foods in schools and they want a mineral export tax. That is not a joke. 
They want to hurt New Zealanders more lose more jobs. We are for growing jobs we are for growing the economy and that is why New Zealanders love the John Key Government. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 So far the contribution from the Government I would say is insulting to New Zealanders listening. It lacks empathy and it lacks understanding of the reality of the situation that we now face. In fact Government members have attempted to try to couch it in fairy tale terms describing real problems as “grumpy” and “bouncy”. They are attempting to defer the problem elsewhere by saying that we were better off than other countries. The reality is that that Government needs to pull its head out of the fairy tale clouds and face the reality. We live in the here and now. We live in New Zealand. We do not live in any other country. It is New Zealand people who are experiencing difficulties. 
As of last Thursday the rate of unemployment is 7.3 percent. That is 175000 people on the unemployment roll. If you combine that with the number of jobless people of almost 300000 with over 113000 people who are working part-time or casually but looking for more work that is more than 400000 people out of work or looking for more hours to work. That is the here and now. That is the reality. Those are real people and real families struggling to make ends meet who have children to support. That is what we are facing and that side continues to treat it as if it is somehow some fairy tale—that it is not real. I suspect that many of them on that side will not know what poverty is like. Probably many of them—and I know of one or two on that side—have never worked in their life because they have been in politics ever since they have been 18. So they will not know the reality of not having a job of not having work. 
I want to make reference to Mr Henare with reference to the Maori unemployment rate. He said that with the Maori population being generally younger that was one of the reasons why there were more unemployed Maori. I think our populations Mr Henare—Maori and Pacific Islanders—are predominantly younger. But that is not the reason why they are unemployed. They are unemployed because there are no jobs. They are unemployed because this Government is refusing to invest in their future. They are unemployed because everything this Government has done has not panned out to what it promised. 
Let me tell you. Do people remember the Job Summit when those members came into Government? We have not heard any more from that Job Summit. Do people remember the 170000 new jobs which was the target the Government was going to set? Well we did not get 170000 jobs. Instead we lost jobs and now we have got 175000 people unemployed. Do people remember the tax switch? We were told that by giving tax cuts to the top 10 percent of employers that somehow we were going to get more jobs. Do people remember the 90-day bill? If employers were able to fire people easily we would get more jobs. Do people remember the youth rates? Somehow by paying young people less—80 percent of the minimum wage—there would be more jobs created. There are no jobs created and I know that the surge in unemployment means that this Government has not been able to keep any of its promises in respect of unemployment. 
I want to make reference to this. Those members blamed it on the recession. Well the recession officially ended in 2009 but they blamed it. They blamed it. Those are your reports. Those are the reports of the Government. 
I want to make reference to the last time that we had such high unemployment numbers which was 13 years ago when Jenny Shipley of the National Government was the Prime Minister. In 1999 under that Government Maori unemployment was 14.8 percent. It was the same for Pacific Islanders. It was the Labour Government—a Labour Government—from 1999 to 2008 that reduced Maori unemployment to 8.2 percent and to 7.3 percent for Pacific Islanders. Where are we now? Both Maori and Pacific Islanders are at 15 percent—15 percent. In so far as Maori and Pacific communities are concerned whenever National is in power unemployment for Pacific Islanders and Maori is always high. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Speaker kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. Hoi no hei timatangia i taku korero me mihi atu ki a koe Su’a e korerohia mai nga korero mo te hunga kore mahi me wa tatou nei whanaunga Maori Pasifika ano hoki kore taea te whai mahi i te mea horekau he mahi kei roto o Aotearoa. No reira mihi atu ki a koe e korero ana i tera korero. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings to us all in the House. So to begin my address I really acknowledge you Su’a for relating stories to us about those without work and about our Maori relatives and Pasifika relatives as well who are unable to find employment because there are absolutely no jobs here in New Zealand. And so I salute you for making that statement. 
] 
Three months ago the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty released its report in which it said: “Children living in poverty are those who experience deprivation of the material resources and income that is required for them to develop and thrive leaving such children unable to enjoy their rights achieve their full potential and participate as full and equal members of New Zealand society.” It then went on to say that if we use the poverty measure adopted by other developed countries—i.e. of families earning less than 60 percent of median income after housing costs have been deducted—then fully 25 percent or 270000 of New Zealand children could for all practical purposes be said to be living in poverty with many experiencing significant material deprivation. It said that poverty rates for Maori and Pacific Island children are twice as high as for Pakeha kids that Maori and Pacific Island kids are twice as likely to be living in severe and persistent poverty and that child poverty rates in New Zealand are twice as high as they were 30 years ago.  
Although we may choose to argue debate or differ in the way in which we measure poverty I think that if any one of us in this House was to sit back and give full and proper consideration to what the priorities of a good and decent society might be surely the well-being of children would rank at the top or very close to it. That is where I would like to think my Education (Breakfast and Lunch Programmes in Schools) Amendment Bill fits. What it is is simply a proposal to make sure that kids in our poorer schools get something to eat every day through the provision of fully funded nutritional breakfasts and lunches in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.  
I hear that some social commentators like to talk about child poverty as if it was caused by poor parental choice bad morals or poor work ethics. But there is little hard evidence that poor people mismanage their income any more than those who are better off. In fact research shows that the main causes of poverty lie elsewhere: the lack of jobs low incomes inadequate over-crowded and high-cost housing poorly targeted welfare racism in the labour market a lack of education poor health institutional racism in the New Zealand police force and the judicial system etc. etc. etc.  
What we do know is that local and international evidence confirms that food in schools programmes improve children’s educational outcomes school attendance and classroom behaviour. We know that in 2011 based on analysis of data and experiences of national and international food in schools initiatives the Child Poverty Action Group recommended the introduction of healthy meals in all decile 1 and 2 schools in Aotearoa.  
We know that in 2012 the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group called on the Government to provide a national strategy for food in early childhood education centres and schools in low-decile neighbourhoods. We know that with regard to the high number of decile 1 and 2 schools providing food to students now there is clear evidence of a pressing need for food to be made available on a sustained and secure basis and that food in schools programmes should not have to rely solely on charity and volunteers. Depending on charity particularly in difficult economic times is risky and uncertain as the termination of the Red Cross programme shows. 
I applaud the efforts of all those schools businesses charities and health promotion agencies for their support. Food in schools is a positive practical and simple step to helping to eliminate poverty and I am grateful for the broad support that I have received since putting the bill in the ballot back in August. I welcome the indications of support from other parties in the House for such an initiative. I thank  
Campbell Live 
 for the excellent series it did on food in schools and I look forward to working with my colleagues right across the House to make this bill a reality when it finally comes before Parliament. Kia ora tatou. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in this general debate. I have had to listen today to the Opposition going on about how this Government this party is making fun of a serious situation. We are not actually making fun of anything. What I would say is this. For a Parliament to work well it is generally recognised that you have to have a good strong Opposition. We do not have a good strong Opposition in this country. 
I would like to refer to a letter that was received by a constituent of mine and he has given me permission to use it in the House today. Not only is he someone who focuses on keeping the Government to account but also he wants to make sure that he is being serviced by a strong Opposition. 
Hon Members 
: What does he say? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: Well I will tell you what it says but before I do that before I read this letter I would just like to come back and mention something that Minister Coleman said earlier in his speech and that is the fact that actually David Shearer is a good man. I think he is a good man. He has done some great things in his life. He could be an excellent leader for the Labour Party but the fact of the matter is that it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys and I think that is probably the situation that Mr Shearer finds himself in. 
This is the sort of letter that Labour members send out in their leader’s name. This letter is to my constituent explaining what they are planning to do on 20 September 2012: “I can assure you …”—the start is not too bad actually. “I can assure you that Labour MPs are concentrating on their portfolios.” Well they always say to start a letter with a bit of comedy and I guess that he got 10 out of 10 for that. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Does it have stutters in it? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: No it does not. But then he went on to say: “We are working on a number of important things at the moment.” Well the comedy has gone too far now. It has got to stop. I will not read you the rest of the letter—the whole letter—because it will probably put you to sleep but I will get to the last part of the letter. It says: “Labour is developing bold new ideas to grow.”—bold new ideas to grow. I would say that a mauling by a white mouse would be more bold than some of the ideas we have seen being generated by the Opposition. 
It continues: “We will be talking a lot more about our plan for the economy in the weeks and months ahead.” Well this was written on 20 September 2012. In all fairness I guess we can say that we are starting to see some policy being announced by the Opposition: turning contractors into employees banning plastic bags in tuck shops reversing employment law change—what does that mean? Picking on poor defenceless hobbits? This is the sort of stuff that is being generated from the Opposition members and that is why if they feel that there has been some fun poked at them they are leaving themselves wide open to it because you are the Opposition— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Order! 
MARK MITCHELL 
: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker you are quite right. I would like to come back and just read a quote here from an ex - Labour candidate. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What’s it say? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: This is what it says: “We’re waiting for David Shearer to give us the Labour narrative. … Where’s he headed? What is his direction?”. That is Josie Pagani in the 
 New Zealand Herald 
. That is what the country is waiting for and it is not getting it. 
The other thing that I would like to do—and I know you are going to be shocked but I would like to recognise David Cunliffe. 
Scott Simpson 
: Why? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: Well I will tell you why. We talk about transparency in this Parliament and I sat up there you know at the back of the House—if I was any further back I would be in the car-park—but it gives me a pretty good look at what is going on in the House and I have to give credit to Mr Cunliffe that he almost missed his question because he was so focused on lobbying Mr Cosgrove for the leadership. I think that to come into the House and start lobbying a colleague like that is something pretty special. 
I am sure Opposition members would like to get up and talk about what is important to them what they are achieving and what they are doing but they cannot—that is right—because there is not really much that they can get up and talk about. But I would say this. Today there is something going on in relation to Mr Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little— 
Dr David Clark 
: Tell us a story about Borat—tell us a story about Borat. Come on tell us a story about Borat. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: I will tell you a story about— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member’s time has expired. The time for this debate has expired. Can I just remind members that when they are interjecting on each other across the House and they do not have the call it is not permitted. You can interject on the speaker by all means but members interjecting on each other without having the floor—they do not have the floor—are not permitted to do so. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill 
Second Reading 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. The Waitaki District Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill considers three pieces of land in the Waitaki district those being in the town of Oamaru. The purpose of this local bill is to revoke the reserve status of the Palmerston Showgrounds to revoke the reserve status of land in Witham Street in Oamaru and to clarify the status of land known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. 
The first two matters in the bill are straightforward. The bill revokes the reservation of the Palmerston Showgrounds land under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of the land in the Waitaki District Council. The council had thought it owned the land and entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the current lessees. When the ownership is vested in the council with the passage of this bill the council can then sell the property. This is an issue that might well make the junior whip across the House yawn with boredom but I can assure that member that to those people who live at the Palmerston Showgrounds this is a matter that is actually quite important to them and so to— 
Grant Robertson 
: Senior whip. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh I am sorry it is the senior whip. Well you would never know to look at him would you? 
The second item in this bill is the second parcel of land—which again the council thought it owned so it was a mistake on the behalf of the local authority—in Witham Street in about the centre of Oamaru and not too far away from where we live by the way. The council sold the land to the current occupants. The council wishes to put right this mistake and to be able to vest ownership of the property in the current proprietors. Again when I meet those people as I do occasionally when I am out buying bread they ask how the bill is coming along because it is something that they are a bit anxious about. They really would like to have the status of the land where their home is and where they live clarified. So those are the first two issues brought with the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. 
Thirdly the council wishes to clarify the status of Lookout Point which is also known as Forrester Heights. For those people who have been to Oamaru Lookout Point is the beautiful piece of land to the south. You look down and you see Oamaru Harbour Oamaru out to Pukeuri out to the north spread out before you. It is truly a beautiful part of Oamaru and a very nice part of the town on a beautiful piece of land. 
The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngai Tahu as part of the Kemp purchase. That parcel of land now known as Forrester Heights was included in the original subdivision of the town of Oamaru back in the 1900s. The land was set aside in 1885. Under a  
Gazette 
 notice in 1885 it was “ ‘reserved for the purpose’ of an endowment in aid of the funds of the Oamaru Borough Council.” Although the junior whip for the Opposition may yawn at this point this is actually quite pertinent to this bill and it does matter to a lot of people— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Senior whip. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh senior whip? Are you sure? He is? Oh OK. The confusion has been whether the word “reserve” relates to whether the land has been designated a reserve under the Reserves Act or whether “reserve” means set apart— 
Chris Hipkins 
: How are Jemima and Big Ted? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —I know I am probably speaking too quickly for the whip but anyway we will box on. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee received extensive advice on this very point. Based on the evidence presented to us by submitters—and we received some quite extensive submissions on this point from a number of submitters and I want to thank them for the work they did on this bill—and also the advice the committee received from officials the committee concluded that Lookout Point is not a reserve and confirmed it as being vested as an endowment in the council in aid of borough funds. 
It is interesting to note that this issue was also canvassed by the Primary Production Committee as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill in clauses 18 to 20. In its select committee report the committee noted that Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation which both have an interest in this had reviewed their records and they were satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was—and I will quote from the report because I think it adds weight to the decision of the committee—“a genuine mistake resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’.” So it has been the most terrible tangle and it has certainly tied up the local community for a number of years. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee received a number of submissions on the Forrester Heights part of the bill. There were around six or seven submissions in favour and 10 against this particular provision in the bill. There were no submissions against the first two provisions that I outlined but there was certainly more controversy around this third provision. 
Also I want to take time to thank all those submitters who took the time to join us by teleconference to travel to Wellington or to write in with their submissions and very helpful photos and documentation in aid of their submission. I can assure them that the committee looked at each and every submission and argued—as committees do—over every point raised. I am happy with the conclusion that the committee came to. A number of those submitters focused on the status of Forrester Heights on its status as reserve land or otherwise and a number of submissions and submitters focused on the past present and future potential uses of the land known as Forrester Heights. 
I want to cover now matters that were not considered as part of the bill. Any proposed use of the land is a matter for the Waitaki District Council and is out of the scope of this bill. I do not propose to tell the local authority what to do with the land. It is not the job of Parliament to do that and it is out of the scope of this Waitaki bill. Whether the land has been used perhaps wrongly or rightly as a public reserve since the 1890s whether the land has under-runners and is prone to movement or not or whether the land should or should not be subdivided and sold is not the business of the Local Government and Environment Committee and indeed is not the business of Parliament. I am firmly of the view that through this bill Parliament has been asked to clarify the status of the land and it has been asked to do only that. It is for the local authority together with the local community to decide any use that the land might be put to in the future. 
I am very happy to bring this bill to the House on behalf of the Waitaki District Council. This has been a difficult and longstanding issue for the Oamaru community. I was pleased to hear the Waitaki District Mayor Alex Familton tell the committee during his submission that whatever the outcome of this bill whatever the status of the land he would put any future use of that land back to the community. I applaud him for that. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 The Labour Party supported the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee because we were interested in hearing the submissions and looking at the evidence that was to be provided in terms of three pieces of land that were being covered by this bill. The reason we wanted to look at it closely was that for the first two pieces of land that Jacqui Dean has mentioned—the Palmerston Showgrounds and another lot in Oamaru—there is little or no controversy at all but the third piece of land called Lookout Point in Oamaru has been controversial. So we wanted to go to the select committee to hear the evidence and to see whether this particular piece of land was land held in reserve or land that had been endowed to Oamaru Borough Council and therefore could be used in the way that it wanted. We went along with an open mind wanting to hear what would be said. 
There were not a lot of submissions on this bill but there were two significant submissions that I want to mention—one from Mr Warren Crawford and one from Mr Barry Monks. They had done a lot of work around this land at Lookout Point because they were firmly of the view that this land had been made reserve land back in the 19th century. They believed that this land was not the council’s to be able to dispose of in any way at all and that it needed to be kept in reserve for the people of Oamaru. So in many ways this bill has been quite a difficult one. In fairness to the select committee and the members on it we were seeking the confirmation that this land could be sold could be subdivided and could have done to it whatever Waitaki District Council wanted to do with it. I have to say that we made a genuine attempt to get all the information that we could. The bottom line is that I believe that what we were provided with after long deliberation and a very extensive search by legal people is that the council does have this land as endowment land; the land does not have a reserve over it. 
I can see why it was confusing. Evidently there was a bill that had been presented to this House that was to in effect make it reserve land but it was never passed. On that basis many of those who have been worried about this land were basing their evidence on a bill that was never passed in this Parliament. I do want to commend those two submitters who set out to get as much information for the select committee as they could particularly Mr Barry Monks. It was Barry Monks’ submission in my view where he presented a lot of evidence and lot of old documents that he had found himself that made us go and ask the officials to go back and search the records again. It was Barry Monks’ submission that really made us have that rethink. I commend him for that because he was able to provide documents we had not seen before. 
 In fact if you look at the whole issue around the gathering of documents I think it was rather unfortunate because there were documents that were missing. There were documents that they had found that they had got from libraries and so on and when they went back to get further documents they found that they had been removed—in fact even cut out of old records which makes people very suspicious. What is going on when you cannot find documents and when documents that were there have since been removed from the database? And so we went through I think very thoroughly looking to see the status of this land. I think it would have been better for all the people of Oamaru if the council had consulted better and we did raise this issue with it around its consultation. It was not good and it has left people very suspicious of its motives. 
It has also I think meant that people believed that the council was interested only in hocking off this bit of land so that it could have money to restore its opera house. And there was concern that because the local member Jacqui Dean had been very supportive of the opera house somehow she was in league with the council and there was some sort of conspiracy around this. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: No surely not. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am not saying Mr Auchinvole that that is what we believe but because of the poor consultation because of the process and because of missing documents and a lack of clarity people were rightly left with that impression. That is why it was important that we did thorough work on establishing the legality of this land. Is it a reserve? Was it endowment land? I have to say on behalf of the Labour Party that we are satisfied that this is endowment land that the council can dispose of. 
We then get to the point of what it wants to dispose of it for. Some of the submissions raised the point that this particular piece of land is pretty unstable. In fact there have been slips up there. They gave us photographs showing that this land was not stable and asked how this could be used for a subdivision. That is something that the council has to work out and it is not our job to decide whether land is stable or not but that was an issue that was raised. I am pleased that a number of my colleagues took the time out to actually go to Lookout Point. I have got two of my colleagues who are sitting here very interested. In fact Mr Twyford is going to speak on this bill. He made a special trip to go and look at the land itself and to meet with those who were concerned and so did Damien O’Connor. As good Opposition members of Parliament—sorry I forgot a third person. David Clark from Dunedin also showed great interest. So we had three Labour members of Parliament which is probably more than the National Party. Jacqui Dean has no doubt been there but I am not sure whether the rest of the National members even know about it. But I do know we were prepared to uncover every stone in search of what the appropriate designation is for this land. In my view we have reached the point where we are satisfied. 
There is one irony I do want to point out though. If this land is subdivided and sold for the restoration of the opera house by the council the irony is we have a bill before this Parliament a local government amendment bill amending the Local Government Act 2002 which says that the councils should be involved in only things that councils can be involved in. You would have to say: is the use of the money from this land appropriate for the restoration of an opera house under the Government’s definition of the purpose of local government? We would say yes. We believe that it is. If the community wants it if it has consulted with the community if it is a community decision then that would be appropriate. However under National’s Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill it would not be because surely an opera house could be provided by the private sector. So there is this sort of—is it a schizophrenic approach? Maybe it is the hypocrisy approach to local government wanting the money from this land to put into an opera house for a council that is being told that that is not really the sort of thing that it ought to be involved in. 
We do support this bill in the second reading and will support it throughout its stages because I believe the hard work was done on this particular piece of land Lookout Point. It was the controversial part of the bill and I think the select committee ably chaired by the member from Christchurch Central resolved the issues satisfactorily. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. The first thing I would like to do is acknowledge the excellent local member Jacqui Dean and the huge amount of work that she has done to ensure that this bill is taken through Parliament. She is a great local member. I did hear in some of the other speeches—and I want to just address this—that some members have gone to the beautiful place of Oamaru to do their own research. I think that is a great thing if a piece of legislation is going through the House. Not all other members on this side have been able to do that but we have so much confidence in our local member Jacqui Dean and the work that she has done over several years that we did not necessarily need to visit and I do look forward to visiting in the near future. 
I also would like to acknowledge the very competent chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner who has worked tirelessly as well with the local member Jacqui Dean on this bill. 
As has already been mentioned this bill deals with several provisions around land. One of them was more controversial as has already been mentioned. The less controversial ones were the Palmerston Showgrounds and the lot 1 ones which were more straightforward because they are a revocation of the land’s Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds land the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 section the bill will allow the Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors and will allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. 
When we get to the key area that has been the subject of many of the submissions that we have received Lookout Point I think it is important to reiterate what has been mentioned by both the member Jacqui Dean and the Hon Annette King and that is that in all of the submissions you can see the huge amount of work that many people have gone into to ensure that the research happened. If we just go back through the history here of Lookout Point there was a very very clear disagreement or misunderstanding or confusion if you like that needed to be resolved. The particular issue with regard to Lookout Point was that an administrative oversight in 1937 had mistakenly vested the land in what was then the Oamaru Borough Council as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts and this was not fully appreciated in 1937. 
We discussed this at length at the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to pay tribute at the moment to the huge amount of work done as well—it was not just by local people in Oamaru—by Land Information New Zealand Ngai Tahu the Department of Conservation the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. As to what came back there is a very clear statement from our report because I think it does resolve this longstanding issue after lots of research by the community and all Government agencies and the local member for Waitaki. I want to read this key statement from the Primary Production Committee’s report on the Reserves and Other Land Disposal Bill: “Having reviewed their records Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word ‘reserve’. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as ‘reserves’ for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.” 
For me that statement summarises several years of work by people in the Oamaru community by the local member Jacqui Dean by numerous Government departments and by the Primary Production Committee. I want to address that because I think it is important at this point as well not only to say that there has been research by the community that our select committee has considered the bill at length— 
Hon Member 
: The Labour members. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: —and that the Labour members have gone down to Oamaru I acknowledge that and that the National members have put a lot of faith in Jacqui Dean because we know what a great member she is— 
Maggie Barry 
: And I’ve been there. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: And Maggie Barry has personally been there as well. As Annette King said I think we will leave no stone unturned which is incredibly appropriate given that we are talking about Oamaru. 
But can I come back to some more of the history because I think members will be very interested in this. The Primary Production Committee heard submissions on 7 May 2009 and the council presented to the committee at the time. This was the key part of its report which I think is aligned with our report but it says as reported back from the Primary Production Committee: “Clauses 18 to 20 relate to land in the Waitaki District known as Lookout Point or Forrester Heights. The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether Lookout Point was mistakenly treated as reserve land under Reserves Act legislation or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” I think what is really important is that we come back again to that point— 
Phil Twyford 
: Cut to the chase. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: No it is very important given that so many people have worked on this issue Mr Twyford that we go through this history and understand that there has been a lot of research by Government agencies the community the Primary Production Committee and the Local Government and Environment Committee. I know what it is like to have a local issue that is of controversy. What I am very confident of as I stand in this House is that we have left no stone unturned. We have had this issue go through several select committees in Parliament. There has been so much research on this issue. 
But the key important point that I want to make is that through several select committee processes we have ended up at this point where we can say we are confident in the approach we have taken with regard to Lookout Point. But what we have said in the select committee’s report on the bill is that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill is currently before Parliament and we have made this point: “We know that clause 7 of this bill is the same as clause 20 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which is currently awaiting its second reading in the House.” and what is important is that “There is nothing in Standing Orders that disallows two different bills from having identical clauses.” I think the conclusion is that in this circumstance “the identical clause can be removed from whichever bill is enacted second by an amendment at the committee of the whole House stage.” I wanted to raise that point because I think it is very important for this House to understand that so many members across the Chamber have cared so much about this issue that we have got two identical clauses in two bills. We know that it is important to the people of Oamaru to resolve this issue finally and once and for all. That does not mean that every person in the community will be happy but what it means is that there has been a very very thorough process with regard to this bill. 
Again I want to acknowledge the member for Waitaki because I think she has dealt with this issue with incredible diligence. She has carried herself well throughout it. I want to acknowledge the people of Oamaru for the many submissions they put in. I want to acknowledge members across the House. I can see Eugenie Sage. I can see the Hon Annette King. I want to acknowledge Nicky Wagner the brilliant chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and other members of the committee for the diligent approach we have taken on this issue. Finally can I commend to the House this bill to resolve this issue once and for all so that the people of Oamaru will know that we have left no stone unturned and they can sleep easier tonight. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Back when I was considerably younger— 
Dr David Clark 
: Before that speech started. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Before the last speech started—actually it was a lot longer than that. Over 5 years ago I was the Minister for Land Information. I was also the former member for Otago; Jacqui Dean knocked me off my perch. The local council came to see me and said it had a problem. It had a piece of land called Forrester Heights and it was only a very small part of Lookout Point which is an issue that vexes some locals in terms of the terminology we are using around this. But anyway the council came to see me and said: “We want to put it beyond doubt that this land is endowment land rather than reserve land.” If it was reserve land and it was properly set aside as a reserve then it could not just be taken by the council and sold with the money to be put into some other purpose. If it was an endowment if it was endowment property then it is treated as an asset that the council can do what it wants with including selling it and using the money for some other purpose. 
I was aware that there was controversy around this because some of the members of my own labour organisation at the time and the Labour Party had a contrary view. As the Minister for Land Information it was my duty to find out whether the council was correct or whether the opponents to sale were correct. Despite the fact that it might have been politically advantageous for me to take a political line I never did. I actually just sought the facts. 
How do you do that? Well if you are the Minister for Land Information the traditional view is that the ministry writes to the Department of Conservation and seeks its advice as to the proper status of the land. The Department of Conservation has got planners and it also has a duty to make sure that conservation interests including those in respect of reserves are properly dealt with. If as a basis of that inquiry it becomes clear that the status of the land is incorrectly recorded on the title to the land and it needs to be fixed then the route through to doing that is generally through a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. There is a good tradition in this Parliament that the only things that go into a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill are things where it is clear that there is a mistake on the title and it is not contentious. 
I looked into it and I had initial advice from the Department of Conservation which advised Land Information which advised me that this land was properly described as endowment land. Because of the criticisms and the correspondence and the personal representations I had had from the other side I actually got the department through my office to go back and check. It did and it found again that it was endowment land not reserve land. So way back then when I was considerably younger than I am now we put it in a bill. 
The sad thing about this is that the delay here has had quite serious financial consequences for the council. Since this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper and has been mucked around with for 4 years property prices have gone back in Oamaru. The amount the council is going to get for these sections has decreased. A number of the contracts the council had to sell sections will have fallen over because they will have passed the date by which— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s all gone. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is all gone. All of them have fallen over because they are beyond the point where they had to get their Resource Management Act consents and provide new titles to the lots being sold. I have to say to the National Party that I do not think that reflects very well on this House because this has— 
Jacqui Dean 
: No—it sat for 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Jacqui Dean says it had 3 years on the Order Paper under Labour. That is not correct because I was not the Minister for Land Information for 3 years and it was actually me that put it in the original Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. What is correct is that at the end of the last Parliament it was in a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Ever since then it has been able to be passed within a week—within a week. 
Hon Member 
: It wasn’t a priority. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: But it was not a priority for the Government. The Government then decided it would start this process again despite the fact that all these things were looked into by a prior Primary Production Committee looking at the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It thought it would do it again through a local bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill—sorry not the Government the local member. I think the local member was right to do that and Jacqui Dean is to be congratulated on doing that because there was no other way forward. The Government refused to bring this matter forward on the Order Paper. 
There are a couple of things. The paper record of this is tortured. It is so tortured that the select committee that last looked at it was persuaded by a submission from Barry Monks who had turned up an archive that no one else had turned up. Barry Monks is to be congratulated on finding a paper trail in this that none of the departments as far as I am aware had found. That paper trail appeared to say that this was a reserve rather than a piece of endowment land. But there were bits of information that went both ways and so the select committee said that the only way to sort this out was for the select committee to get some legal advice on the basis of all of this paper that had now been found and the full history that was then available in order to clarify whether at law it was endowment land or reserve land. Sadly for Barry Monks and the other people in Oamaru who feel very strongly that this is properly classified as a reserve the proper advice is that on the balance of the evidence it is endowment land. So a decision has to be taken. The Local Government and Environment Committee members from both sides of the House reached the conclusion that it was properly endowment land and therefore it ought to be sold which of course was the effect of the provision in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill as a consequence of the process we went through when I was considerably younger. 
There is one further point. We hear this land described as Lookout Point. I know that one of the issues that vexes some of the local opponents to this is that they think this misdescribes this land. The land is locally known as Forrester Heights which is part of Lookout Point. Lookout Point includes some very important reserves and there is no doubt that a lot of the land on Lookout Point is a reserve. There are walking tracks on it. It is not part of the land adjacent to the road which is the Forrester Heights subdivision. Lookout Point goes further than that. So I want to put on record for the satisfaction of those people who are interested in that issue that I agree with them—it is properly described as Forrester Heights rather than Lookout Point—but the legal description of the land which is what matters in this bill is correct. 
It is a shame that the finances of the council are worse because there has been so much delay in passing the original piece of legislation which still languishes on the Order Paper. You know this Parliament could have passed the original bill and not just fixed this problem but fixed the about dozen other issues that are also fixed in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—which was going to fix similar problems in other parts of the country—in the same time that it has taken us to pass this bill. In fact there would have been a lot less waste of select committee time doing again what has already been done. But no it has been chosen to proceed by way of a local bill because the member for Waitaki Jacqui Dean became frustrated that her Government would not pass the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which was of identical effect in respect of the Forrester Heights land. She found that to advance that the member had to advance a local bill. It is a pity that this could not have been advanced as part of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. 
I am sad for the people who think that they were right in terms of their criticisms of the council. Could I also say that the confusion that reigned in this was not the fault of either the council or the people who thought from the paper record that this was properly reserve land. It was a truly confusing set of affairs. I am not criticising anyone on either side of the debate. Sadly in the end where there is a dispute as to what the correct state of affairs is someone eventually has to make a decision. Otherwise these things would just go on until I am retired—even older. But the reality is that in the end where there is a dispute someone has to take a decision eventually. In this case both sides of Parliament have looked at it responsibly and in a principled manner have applied the law which it is our duty to do and have found that this is endowment land. Accordingly the Labour Party will be voting for this bill. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak with pleasure to the Waitaki District Council Reserves— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to inquire whether the member has in fact visited Forrester Heights because there is a Standing Order called the “Maggie Barry principle”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member is being facetious. That is a debatable point quite frankly. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the issue. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to note that there is a continuing pattern of the point of order process being abused in this House and that is a very good example. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I have dealt with the issue. This is a robust Parliament. There is always some leeway and it is up to the Speaker to judge the situation. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Holly Walker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just have a query regarding the speaking order. I believe that the next speaker on the list should be my colleague from the Green Party Eugenie Sage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Actually to be quite truthful you are absolutely right. But I am now in the awkward position that once I have called someone I have to accept the call. I did not see the member. My apologies. Unfortunately I have called Maggie Barry and she has to take the call. I call the honourable member Maggie Barry. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Let the record stand true that Maggie Barry stands to speak to the second reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill after a couple of false starts and mischievous ones at that. There is nothing uncommon there though particularly from the member who has come a long way from Devonport to Te Atatu and apparently he has flip-flopped on his holidays down to Oamaru. How commendable. 
My family landed in Oamaru back in the 1860s. It is an area we know particularly well. I am very happy to speak to this bill and I commend Jacqui Dean as a local member for finally getting this up and running. There have been a number of submissions around this over a number of years. We heard recently from the shockingly aged David Parker—such is the toll that leadership has taken on him. He has certainly aged in front of our very eyes has he not? The legislation languished under Labour for 3 years. There were submissions called for at that time which never got anywhere. 
I note the energy of Jacqui Dean who had to put up with a lot of silly conspiracy theories which the Hon Annette King said she did not share but still wanted to talk about again today. There have been a lot of mischievous comments made around this and I noted that Barry Monks has been talked about a lot. He was a submitter who came up with some arcane and as it turned out totally unfounded and incorrect information which held the Local Government and Environment Committee’s deliberations up for some period of time because it was wrong—completely wrong. That was the advice we had. Interestingly though Barry Monks has a long association with the area as the Labour Party candidate—the failed Labour Party candidate—for the area. Jacqui Dean holds the seat. I wonder why so many Labour Party people went down there to have a look. But let us put that to one side. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. It is not something that they usually do with us but we have a lot more largesse than that. 
I would like to talk about the issue at hand which is the putting right of something that is actually not something we should be dwelling on for this length of time in Parliament. The status of the land needed to be defined. This bill does that. There were mistakes made by councils dating back a very very long way. Section 13 of the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862 provides that whenever any land is set apart by the Governor as a public reserve and by publication in the  
Gazette 
 has been declared to have been set aside as a reserve that land is not to be alienated by way of sale mortgage lease or otherwise. There is no argument about that but it is about how this land is described. There is no evidence to support the view that Lookout Point has been set apart as a public reserve under that amendment Act. We discussed all of this at length. 
When you go back through the files—and I guess the Oamaru Borough Council in those days was commendable in that it tried to keep as many records as it could; it was very careful about what it did with its paperwork but it did slip through and this was a mistake—when the council searched through what was there it was able to go through a very large paper trail indeed. I think a lot of our submitters are to be congratulated because they spent a lot of time and a lot of effort going back through the history going back through the paperwork and trying to determine what in fact is the status of this much sought after and locally very important piece of land. 
I do know Oamaru very well. I have been there many times in many incarnations as it were. Its botanic garden is amongst the oldest in the country and a very fine one it is too. It is visible from Forrester Heights or Lookout Point. For those members of the Labour Party who did not go on the tiki-tour down there we were given the pictures and we have had a look at it. To refresh our memories this is a prime piece of land that also looks out over the blue penguin colony. What some members may not know—such was the exhaustive nature of some of the submissions that we all know it now—is that it is a remarkable piece of avifauna rich reserves of dead bird fossils. It is very rare in the South Island. Bird bones especially of the moa are recorded findings in the limestone and have been preserved which make the area unique. So there are very many reasons why a lookout of this kind will be preserved. It needs to be properly understood in terms of what its status is so that it will be preserved in perpetuity. 
We heard from Mayor Alex Familton and the chief executive officer of the council Michael Ross as well that when this is finally resolved and goes through as I am sure it will once the Committee deliberations have occurred and then it is back here in the House again for its third reading they have undertaken to go back to the people of Oamaru and to ask them what it is that they would like. I think Forrester Heights and Lookout Point will be enshrined as a reserve and will keep that status. As Jacqui Dean has pointed out she has been walking there many times. It is a favoured place in Oamaru to look out over the harbour and look out over what is an extremely attractive historic town. 
There are a couple of issues that the council wanted resolved. It worked closely incidentally with Ngai Tahu which had also done a great deal of research on this matter and had found out that there was in fact no problem around the council’s view that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title to the land and that it is therefore not subject to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. This was something that was raised by a number of submitters. It is a legitimate concern or it was felt to be. Once again it was explored in detail. If anyone ever wondered about I suppose the robust nature and the rigorous nature of what goes on in select committees this really is a case in point this member’s bill. The level of detail that the submitters chose to come forward with was such that it then sent the very hard-working officials back to the books and back to the drawing board to double-check everything. I can assure you that the findings that we have come out with now are very much the accurate ones. 
When this matter was discussed within the Primary Production Committee in relation to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill back in 2009 there were I think 37 written submissions and there were a further 19 heard. That was that committee. But that was all put to one side and the committee that I sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee considered 27 submissions and they were very detailed as well. I have handed some on to my colleagues. Paul Goldsmith who is chatting happily here could perhaps hand them to me. Paul is handing over the submissions. Thank you—very good. He is paying close attention to his colleagues. There is a big stack of them. Suffice it to say that there were 27 submissions from interested parties and we heard seven of them. The detail was enormous. There are kilos and kilos of material. There is some around there as well. The other interested members of our party have also been looking at these. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is the visual part of the speech. I have the photographs in fact if the honourable member would like to see them. We could easily do that. This is a bill that we know far more about than we would ever have imagined possible actually. 
Land Information New Zealand has also taken a pivotal role in all this and the Department of Conservation. They have looked at it exhaustively. They too are satisfied that treating Lookout Point land as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake back in the day. Their assessment of it—and it is one that I agree with—is that this mistake resulted from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. I guess with a country as young as New Zealand sometimes the semantics have tripped us up where we have not had the traditional examinations at a local level. But these have in fact been corrected now. So although we very much appreciate the sentiment of the submitters and acknowledge that there is a contention in this issue after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation the belief very much of us on this side of the House and in the select committee is that the land was actually classified as a reserve for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve. 
The  
Otago Daily Times 
 not surprisingly—a very active local paper—has also taken a huge interest in this issue and has followed it. Again as somebody who is relatively new to this House I commend the local media for taking notice of and paying close attention to the detailed workings of cases that are reflected from their local community in the House. The Forrester Heights status is likely to change with something that the  
Otago Daily Times 
 predicted earlier this year and it is very much in favour of it as well as are a number of the people who have written in and given letter contributions to the  
Otago Daily Times 
. 
The Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens chair said that he was disappointed in the decision because he was concerned that the land could be split up into residential developments and this was something that was echoed by some of the submitters. I think it is that fear that motivated many people to come forward to our select committee. They were worried that if the status changed then there would be other less welcome changes that would be occurring other than just tidying up the wording the paperwork and the semantics of it. But as I said the mayor came to the select committee and reassured us repeatedly that he would be checking with the people. It was an opportunity really to re-engage with the community on the use of land that was very dear to their hearts and the hearts of the community. 
So it is with pleasure that I speak to the second reading. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I have been pleased to be a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which as Nikki Kaye noted has worked very diligently on this bill. I am grateful to Mr Parker for his explanation of the history of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill because it was very puzzling as a new member to see that there were two pieces of legislation that had gone through different select committees that dealt with the same piece of land. 
The Green Party like the select committee has been diligent on the bill. Our co-leader Metiria Turei visited the site at Lookout Point—which for members who have not been there is this piece of land Forrester Heights—and talked with the locals who were concerned about its future status; some of those people made submissions to the select committee. The Green Party’s position was to support this bill at its first reading to the select committee and that is because it fixes historical clerical errors in relation to the legal status of two areas of land that continue to be uncontroversial. But based on public submissions to the select committee strong community concerns about the proposed sale of Lookout Point by the council and the inadequate consultation that the council did in relation to its proposed subdivision we will now be opposing the bill unless there is support for Supplementary Order Paper 150 in my name. That Supplementary Order Paper seeks to delete clause 7 which is the substantive clause in relation to Lookout Point and to make consequential changes to the bill. 
The uncontroversial clauses in the bill are in relation to the reserve status of land with a former caretaker’s cottage on it which is associated with the Palmerston Showgrounds in North Otago and another small lot in Oamaru. Because the council sold these lots when it did not have the power to sell them the bill regularises that by revoking the reserve status. It was those mistakes in the purported sale of properties that the council thought that it owned but were actually Crown-owned reserve that have obviously got implications for the current owners and occupiers of the land and obviously should be resolved. So we are supportive of those clauses that clear up those ownership issues for the current landholders. 
But it is clause 7 that is problematic because that is seeking to clarify the status of the Forrester Heights area of Lookout Point and that is to be endowment land held by the Waitaki District Council. As endowment land it would be able to be sold by the council for this subdivision at Forrester Heights and the council would use the funds I understand to promote the restoration of the Oamaru Opera House and the art gallery. Of course that was the issue that attracted quite substantial submissions and as Maggie Barry has noted quite weighty submissions to the select committee because of community concern. Certainly using the funds for the opera house and the art gallery is very worthy but so is the retention in public ownership of land that the community values for recreation for walking and for the fact that it is the backdrop to the town and has got sweeping views from Cape Wanbrow out over the harbour and the town. 
That is why we have changed our status on the bill and are not supportive of the land being endowment land for council purposes. That is largely because of the lack of consultation by the council. Submitters’ evidence was that the council had not consulted properly when it undertook the application for a subdivision and that in fact it had granted itself a resource consent for the subdivision without that consent being publicly notified under the Resource Management Act and without appointing external commissioners to consider the application. So there was no opportunity for the public to get involved under the Resource Management Act processes and give their views to council on the potential impacts of the subdivision and on the value of that land to the public. I think that is partly why there has been such strong community concern because there has not been a legitimate avenue for that to be expressed through the due legal process. Then when the subdivision consent for Forrester Heights was due to lapse because it had not been implemented the council extended the lapsing period again without that being publicly notified. 
As other members have noted the land is significant because of its sweeping coastal views because of its use for recreation because the little blue penguin colony is at the base of the cliffs and because of the limestone fossils and the use of the area by moas in the past. The community did not get a chance through the Resource Management Act process to highlight all of these values and to point out to the council that that would be affected by the subdivision. 
As one submitter Helen Stead a former Waitaki District councillor said “WDC action by-passing formal local government planning process in favour of asking central government to make decisions over local land use without first giving local residents opportunity to comment is unacceptable. … Oamaru & Waitaki District residents & ratepayers have not been given the chance to submit on either the revoking of the Reserve status or the non-notified consent granting approval for development & sale of the land.” Certainly we were given assurances by the mayor of the council that the subdivision signs would be removed but I am not aware of the actual resource consent for subdivision having been withdrawn by the district council so that means it continues to have the legal right to proceed with the subdivision if this bill goes through and if the land becomes endowment land which the council can then onsell. 
As other members of the House have noted there has been quite considerable evidence historical evidence by submitters on the use of the land and photographs like this one show the 1890 Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that the land has been treated as if it were a public reserve for more than a century. It was not only these Arbor Day celebrations and the fact that trees were planted there but just the public use of the area as well. So there is strong public support for the land remaining in council ownership and there was evidence provided by Mr Monks that the initial decision to vest the land as a reserve was not made in error. The evidence he gave was about the way the land had been treated by the Crown and local council since 1862 and of course it was recognised and designated as a reserve in the district plan until 2005 when the council changed that designation. 
I certainly understand that the council may well choose to reconsider whether the subdivision development would proceed but it still has the resource consent that would allow it to do that and that is why the Green Party is opposing the bill unless Supplementary Order Paper 150 to delete clause 7 as it applies to Lookout Point is passed because there has been an inadequate process and inadequate consultation by council with the community. The bill would essentially legitimise that and create another wrong by allowing the land to be sold. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill brought to the House by the local member Jacqui Dean and also I would commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this to the House in relation to this public land in the Waitaki district. New Zealand First also sent a representative down to Oamaru our MP Denis O’Rourke Christchurch New Zealand First list MP to look at it. Denis with a legal background and being a lawyer was able to assess it and look at the various aspects of the properties in question and advise our caucus accordingly. We are in support of the land in terms of the Palmerston Showgrounds and also the northern piece of land in Oamaru Lot 1 DP 345820 transferring across under this bill because both of those parcels of land have been proven to be in the hands of current lessees are no longer deemed to be reserves by the council and are appropriate to be passed by this bill. 
However our investigations do not fully support the information that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee in relation to Forrester Heights. New Zealand First still has grave concerns about that particular block of land and we still believe that there is sufficient community concern from many people within the community that that land rightfully perhaps while it is in dispute should continue to remain as a public reserve. There are questions over that endowment land status and questions over it having been transferred to a reserve nearly 100 years ago and how that paperwork was all transferred and signed off by the Governor-General. In a sense because that reserve has been a reserve for over 100 years back into the 1800s it is almost incumbent on this Parliament to ensure that the likes of it is preserved. 
When a community has had land like that and has come to know land like that for such a long period of time as the backdrop to the town of Oamaru and where so many people still associate it with being part of that extended connection of Lookout Point and where so many people in the community do cherish it as reserve land it is in a sense a shame that other members of the community would wish to take that away for all time and subdivide it into 5.8 hectares of subdivision and put “For Sale” signs up on sections for houses to overlook the Oamaru Harbour and also create a housing backdrop for central Oamaru itself. We have concerns because the likes of the Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens association the Friendly Bay Society and many others in Oamaru say that it should not happen; therefore we are not convinced that it should either. 
I have been involved over a number of years in trying to acquire reserve land in many places and in going out on a huge limb to secure the likes of land at Long Bay on the North Shore the likes of the Chelsea sugar refinery park land and other land all around Auckland; also in helping the Auckland Regional Council to secure was it Rakitu Island out on the Hauraki Gulf and in trying to secure more land under the Auckland Regional Council around the Auckland region; and indeed in supporting other councils around New Zealand to secure other reserves around New Zealand to have land in public reserve in perpetuity. So it also goes against the grain for me to see such a beautiful piece of reserve land which is the backdrop to Oamaru being put up for commercial sale potentially by its council when so many other councils around New Zealand are trying to increase public reserve land for the use of our growing population. It does concern me that perhaps the priorities of the Waitaki District Council are not in accordance with a significant percentage of its population and by going through with this particular bill we could in fact be reversing the tide of what is happening so often throughout New Zealand with us trying to acquire greater green spaces for our population. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We are sad that we are not able to support the member. We commend the member for bringing the bill to the House but at the same time when the information did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee from the likes of Barry Monks Warren Crawford and a number of others there was still a certain level of doubt. Even though the officials have said that they believe it is correct there is still a level of doubt and I think that in these instances we should still err on the side of caution and we should always give land and reserves the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt in this case will result in the council taking something like $3 million profit from this land to go towards a $10 million refurbishment of the Oamaru Opera House but money is money and once the money has gone it is gone for ever. If the land is retained—if reserve land is retained and it is kept in that reserve status and situation—it will be there for ever. That is one of the things—$3 million will quickly come and go but that reserve once it is gone will be gone for ever. 
Some concern was also expressed by the community that—and I have not been up there myself but it was mentioned to me—the views from up above and driving up to a particular lookout and other things would be affected by these houses being put there. Again the impact on the community is that it takes away what have traditionally and for more than a century been various aspects and various lookouts over Oamaru. It would be a great shame if they were taken away. 
Just in closing can I say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this and we hope that the district of Waitaki down there and the people of Waitaki can have another look at this. I think it was a great shame that “For sale” signs were put up a year or two ago for the land before this was all determined which caused huge consternation amongst many people in the community. That is not how it should have been. There was inadequate consultation. It did not go through a full robust transparent process and really I think they should go back to the people of Oamaru and of the Waitaki district. The council should really ask the people of Oamaru and the Waitaki district whether they want it to go ahead with this or whether the people want it to keep this reserve land for ever. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I do so with great pleasure. This is a local bill sponsored by the MP for Waitaki. My colleague Jacqui Dean I think has done an excellent job. Why I emphasised “for Waitaki”— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Where is Waitaki? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I have been there. I have been to Waitaki. I have been to Lookout Point. I have been to Oamaru. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Where haven’t you been? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well when you get to my age you have been to most places really. So it is a bit like one of the other Davids—David Parker—said: there are pleasures in being of a certain age. But I was a little surprised. I had hoped to hear from Andrew Williams who is no stranger to the needs of local government and certainly no stranger to the need for a council to control its own destiny—I would have thought that he would be keen to support the initiative given the very careful work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee rather than him just saying that he does not really know whether councils should do this or not. This is a council-nominated purpose and basically surely central government should take due diligence and great care but treat that requirement with great respect. It is a locally focused bill but not one beyond the comprehension of non-Waitaki people. Nor is it one that is trivial or not deserving of this Chamber’s time. 
I would have to say that I am a little concerned at the rapidity with which the Green Party tends to vote against bills. I sometimes wonder whether the Green members do it in the comfortable knowledge that others will support it whereas I think it would be probably more serious of them if they considered the consequences if theirs was the deciding vote and what would happen rather than saying “Well everyone else is going to pass it—we’ll take a contrary view.” and relishing that. 
Far from this not being an important bill this bill is one that highlights just how important it is that this House does not forget the matters of community interest—that bills with a community focus are no less important than those with a national focus. It is a bill that helps to keep the current use of land viable while also addressing a historical error made essentially in relation to semantics. This happens. It happens particularly in land information memoranda. I am addressing these questions at the moment for people in the West Coast. 
Bills like this are why we have electorate MPs representing their communities. It is a credit to Jacqui Dean that she has spoken for her region in such a fashion. I commend her for her effective advocacy as the member of Parliament for Waitaki. I would also like to take my hat off to Nicky Wagner chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That was a great committee in the days when Phil and I were— 
Phil Twyford 
: Oh good times! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Phil Twyford and I were on that committee. It is a committee that can handle this sort of thing. It is a big committee. All parties are represented. It does a good job. It does a good job. And it has done a good job with this one. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Let’s sing “Kumbaya”. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I do not know—I think it is important that we do celebrate things when they are handled in a non-partisan manner to the benefit of a community. Kris Faafoi thinks it is funny. I do not think it is funny. 
As the land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngai Tahu in 1848—you want the details—as part of the Kemp purchase the land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Oamaru. Ngai Tahu have a significant place in this issue. As others have noted they have taken considerable advice on the matter. They have confirmed to the council that their view is that the Waitaki District Council has a right to the freehold title of the land and it is therefore not subject to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That is significant. 
It is a bill that has received support from its respective council which has worked with and received support from Land Information New Zealand the aforementioned Ngai Tahu the Department of Conservation the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. It is not hard to see why this bill holds such diverse support. 
The Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1 DP 345820 parts of the bill are straightforward revocations of the Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds clauses it will allow Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees. In the case of the lot 1 clauses the bill will allow Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors and allow the title of the property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. This is as it should be. So too I would like to suggest for the critics is the resolution to Forrester Heights also known as Lookout Point. Glossed over one could say in the lamentations of Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage this issue has been raised before in Parliament. I would like to highlight again the support of Land Information New Zealand which as I say is an organisation I have had some little amount to do with. It is a very very considered group of people. It has systems that go back to the very first surveys in New Zealand and it does not make decisions lightly. 
The Department of Conservation as discussed provided its support in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill select committee stage in 2009. After receiving 37 submissions and hearing a further 19 the Primary Production Committee reported as follows: “The submissions we received concern one key issue: whether the Lookout Point land was mistakenly treated as reserve land under the Reserves Act legislation or whether the council is attempting to circumvent the law to enable a building development.” We heard earlier from Labour members saying that this confusion concerned them. It concerned them. They went down and turned every stone—they turned every stone—and came away convinced. So this is not just a National conspiracy. It is a National-Labour conspiracy. To continue the quote “Having reviewed their records Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation are satisfied that treating Lookout Point as a reserve was indeed a genuine mistake resulting from the various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. While we appreciate the sentiment of submitters and acknowledge there is contention on this issue after receiving advice from Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation we believe that the land was actually classified as “reserves” for an endowment in aid of borough funds rather than as a recreation or similar reserve.” So it was a genuine mistake. On this side of the House—and I am glad we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Labour on this one— 
Phil Twyford 
: Stop stop please. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —as many other groups clearly are as well—we are of the opinion that progress and the best use of land should not be hindered by genuine mistakes. 
This bill in intent and in action is local in nature but should not be only local in support. During my time as chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee I was proud to work on and progress bills such as these. They are very very important and you get a lot of satisfaction from it. Indeed bills such as these are why we have the Local Government and Environment Committee and why its tireless work and achievements under Nicky Wagner should be commended. I support this bill and call on other members to do the same. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I just want to say that I am a little surprised that Maggie Barry took a call in this debate. There is a long-established principle—not really a Standing Order—known as the “Maggie Barry principle”. For example if you do not have children then you should not speak about a bill that relates to child rearing or children. It was very clear from Maggie Barry’s speech that she had never visited Forrester Heights. She showed us photographs and she told us stories about the old days when she visited the botanic gardens in Oamaru but it was very clear that she had not visited Forrester Heights and that is a clear breach of the “Maggie Barry principle”. 
Labour is supporting this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. As colleagues have pointed out no Oamaru stone has been left unturned as we have sought to solve the mystery that lies at the heart of this bill and that is the controversy over whether or not this land that we are talking about at Forrester Heights was indeed endowment land or whether it was land with reserve status. That confusion lies at the heart of the two debates now that we have had in the House on this and a lengthy select committee process. 
A number of members of this House visited Oamaru and in fact visited Forrester Heights. I was one of those and I want to thank Warren Crawford and Barry Monks who have really done everything they could to try to ensure that the truth comes out in this issue. Barry Monks did significant historical research working through—sifting through—what is an incomplete confusing and chaotic paper trail the historical record about this block of land. I want to commend Barry Monks for the work that he did. 
But it is clear—for members on the Labour benches at least—that to the best of our knowledge and to the best of our understanding and I think that of a majority on the Local Government and Environment Committee it was in fact a genuine mistake lost in the mists of time now that this block of land known as Forrester Heights was regarded as reserve land whereas in fact it was endowment land. 
I want to say to New Zealand First and Green colleagues in this debate that I believe that it is pretty clearly established that the question of what happens to this land—whether it is developed or not—is a matter for the Waitaki District Council to decide. It is not a matter for this House through some back-door route—for instance by denying a bill that seeks to rectify the legal status of the land. It is not a legitimate course of action for this House to interfere in the normal and legitimate workings of the democratically elected council of Waitaki District. 
I can understand that the New Zealand First members take the view that they were not convinced by the discussion at the select committee. That is a matter of interpretation and reasoning. That is entirely their call to make of course and that is the basis of New Zealand First’s position. But I do question really the logic and coherence of the Green Party’s position in this debate. To vote against this bill on the basis that it does not believe that the quality of the consultation that the Waitaki District Council made in relation to seeking a resource consent for subdivision—the quality of public consultation—was good enough is not a legitimate or logical reason to vote against this bill. So that I think needs to be said. 
Why were the people of Oamaru or at least some of the community in Oamaru so suspicious about this bill? I think there is a reason why the people of Oamaru were suspicious about what looked like on the face of it a kind of jack-up between property developers and local politicians to turn what they regarded as a piece of valuable public reserve land into a private housing subdivision and the reason is that the National Party has form in this area. There is a reason why the public is suspicious of a party that never hesitates to try to sell off public resources and public assets into private ownership. That is the reason that the people of Oamaru are suspicious that the National Party would bring a bill to this House to try to flog off public reserve land. As it turns out in this instance it is the right thing to do we believe based on the best reading of the historical record to rectify the confusion and the ambiguity about the status of this block of land. 
But there is a reason that people are suspicious of the National Party: because it has a track record of selling off assets that belong to the community that belong to the public. The National Party believes ideologically that property and assets that belong to the people can best be shifted into private ownership and private control. It has a track record of constantly undermining our democratic institutions in local government. Within the next few days we are going to debate a bill in this House the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which does a gross disservice to communities and to local democracy in this country. So those are the reasons why people are suspicious of the National Party. 
There is another member’s bill on the Order Paper currently. It is the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill which is another bill— 
Hon Chester Borrows 
: A local bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is a local bill. I beg your pardon. Thank you to the member for correcting me. It is a local bill but it is another bill that on the face of it looks like a deal that has been cooked up by local interests to shift a publicly owned water supply into private hands. People are suspicious of that and they will be. The National Party gives them every reason to be suspicious about that. The members on the other side of the House do not like hearing a few home truths but they should just listen and in fact listen to the voices of the people of New Zealand who are utterly opposed to asset sales and privatisation. 
I visited Oamaru as part of a trip around New Zealand talking to rural and provincial councils and actually listening to them about how this Government is squeezing the lifeblood out of local roads and local transport because of its misguided and mismanaged transport policies. I was in Oamaru and the local Federated Farmers and the local council were scathing about the failure of the local member to stand up for them on the question of local roads. There was not only the question of local roads and how this Government is cutting the funding for local roads and putting more and more pressure on the local ratepayer; they were terribly upset about what this Government is doing with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—taking the democratic rights of local communities away from them and setting communities up all around rural and provincial New Zealand for forced amalgamations. That is what this Government’s agenda is in local government. That is why people have been so suspicious about this bill. 
But as it turns out I believe that the member for Waitaki should be congratulated as many colleagues have said on bringing this bill to the House. It is a perfectly good and reasonable bill. The select committee has done its work. It has done its work it has taken the advice of officials it has investigated the historical record and I believe that the best efforts have been made to actually determine what the appropriate status for this land is and whether it should be endowment land or reserve land. Labour is supporting this bill. Thank you very much. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I hesitate to stand up in front of my learned chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee but I would like to have my say on this important bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I was glad to hear from the previous speaker Phil Twyford his congratulations to the excellent member for Waitaki Jacqui Dean but I thought he was rather unkind in suggesting that there was some nervousness on the part of the local constituency about what the National Party’s intentions were. I mean given the fact that this member has a 14140 majority— 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —14140 over Barry Monks—indeed this person who has been held up to be commended. That has been the number of people voting for Jacqui Dean and I think that is a great testament to the popularity of that member in the local environment and a testament to the hard work and the support of the National Party. 
 There was a member who spoke earlier Mr David Parker who used to be a member in this area I believe some time ago. I understand that he tried to deal with the situation that we are dealing with in this bill but failed to make any progress on what turned out to be a difficult and intractable issue. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Shouldn’t you be talking about Epsom? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Yes well funnily enough that member did indeed come up to Epsom and he failed to have much traction in that area either. He spoke with a great deal of clarity on a number of issues in the Epsom electorate but I do not think he gained a lot of sympathy with the locals. To be sure the people of Epsom do tend to be focused on understanding the importance of enterprise in the development of this country and its economy and I do not think Mr Parker’s messages around extra taxes and capital gains resonate very well with the locals up there so he went on. I do think nevertheless that David Parker would make a fine leader of the Labour Party if he had an opportunity. 
Fundamentally this bill is about fixing an error that was made back in 1937 when this land was mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve. We all make mistakes. Indeed sometimes political parties make mistakes when they are choosing leaders and when they are deciding where the future of the party is going to be. I suppose we have to reap the consequences of our mistakes. There comes a time when you have to set them right and it will be interesting to see whether over the next few days the Labour Party— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —rectifies what may have been a mistake. Sorry do I need to shorten things? Oh right. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Back to the bill. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Getting back to Waitaki then interestingly this bill really harks back to history. When we look at this land which was originally purchased by the Government from Ngai Tahu in 1848 as part of the Kemp purchase it was then part of the original subdivision of the town of Oamaru. Then we go on to 1885 when the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the then Oamaru Borough Council. I heard another member Chris Finlayson in the general debate today talking about history. He was talking about the history of the Labour Party which is going to be the subject of a seminar. It is interesting that they are focusing on the success of Norm Kirk. 
Phil Twyford 
: It’s already been. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Well I would be very interested to hear some of the reports because what you had here was celebrating the ability to take a 23-seat majority in 1992 and convert it into a 23-seat loss in 1975 and yet this is still held up as a great moment in history for the Labour Party. To go from a 23 majority to a 23 loss—I am sorry that was 1972 to 1975. I am sorry about that. It is interesting. That was a remarkable period in our history to go from such support in 1972 and then in 1975 being in a great deal of trouble. 
Anyway I am getting back to 1885 in that period when this land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Oamaru Borough Council. You cannot help but go back to 1885— 
Brendan Horan 
: Is it actually going anywhere this ramble? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —a very interesting time in New Zealand’s history when this nation was being developed—somebody is trying to put me off—and when this nation was growing. When we look back at the seeds of that success in New Zealand in the 19th century what do we see? We see the innovation that was so important to the farming communities around Oamaru where it became a successful city and a prosperous part of New Zealand. We look at the export markets and the fact that New Zealand at the time had great access to the United Kingdom and was able to sell its produce around the world. Then we look at the skilled workforce that was ready and eager to work on the farms and to build with that Oamaru stone that beautiful city that we now visit and understand and love. Then we look at the development of infrastructure that was so important to the nation and to the development of this city linking it with Timaru linking it with Dunedin and with Christchurch. Then we think about the natural resources that the people who came from the other side of the world to Oamaru and set up their farms discovered the gold up in the hills not far from Oamaru and the fruit and vegetables and the grass from the land. Then we also think about the capital markets that they were able to draw upon through sovereign funds from London in order to grow and develop.  
When we think about these these are all the things that this Government is talking about in its Business Growth Agenda which is the heart and soul of what this Government is trying to achieve here in this country. All those things that are so crucial now were indeed still crucial back in 1885 when this land that we are talking about here today was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the Oamaru Borough Council. I just wanted to reassert or underline the importance of all those elements of the Business Growth Agenda which I think cannot be repeated enough in this House because that is what this Government is focusing on and what it is all about.  
I just want to draw back if I may in the last few minutes that we have available to us to some of the intricacies of this bill. When we reached 1935 and there was an administrative oversight that saw this piece of land mistakenly vested in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve we found that as a result of this confusion and the result of the semantics the reserved land was endowed. It should have been endowed instead of reserved as was intended. We had a long period of time when there was some confusion over the exact status of this land. So the council has been working closely with Land Information New Zealand with Ngai Tahu with the Department of Conservation with the Commissioner of Crown Lands and indeed with the member for Waitaki the very fine Jacqui Dean. She worked tirelessly and meticulously to try to work her way through the complications of this situation to bring it to such a happy result as we have today. We have reached the second reading and we are not far off from resolving once and for all this issue so that the local council can have the ability to have the flexibility of arrangements that it needs in order to continue to serve its community successfully and in a way that does not unduly burden them with rates.  
I was glad that the previous speaker Phil Twyford did mention the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which will be coming back to the House because that is an excellent piece of legislation. Certainly the thing that people around my neighbourhood are most concerned about is the cost of local government. This bill will deal with it in a particular way of great importance to the people of Oamaru. But the wider legislation that will be coming down the track before too long will start to deal with some of those four well-beings that have led to a massive growth in local government spending over the last decade and will get local government focused back on its essentials such as dealing with its reserve and endowment lands and moving the community forward.  
Getting back on to Ngai Tahu which took considerable advice in the development of this legislation they confirmed to the council that it was their view that the Waitaki District Council has— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. The next call is a split call so I am calling Raymond Huo for 5 minutes. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call following that member who has just resumed his seat. I found Mr Paul Goldsmith’s speech on history very informing and entertaining. It is very regrettable that that member has not taught us about the history of the Epsom electorate. 
But back to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I would like to acknowledge Nicky Wagner—the good chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and also to acknowledge the member for Waitaki Ms Jacqui Dean. She is doing a good job in bringing this bill to this House on behalf of her constituents because they have waited for too long. Obviously this bill is not her Government’s priority. The purpose of this bill is to— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s a local bill. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Well calm down. This is a very serious speech about a serious bill. The purpose of this bill is to revoke the reservation status of two pieces of land within the Waitaki District and they are Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1 DP 345820—it sounds like this bill has taken me back to my commercial property lawyer days. This bill also seeks to clarify the status of a third piece of land which is Lookout Point. 
Labour supported this bill going to the select committee. As my colleagues the Hon Annette King the Hon David Parker and Phil Twyford have said in their previous speeches Labour supported this bill but we did raise a concern about the land at Lookout Point. The first two pieces of land were uncontroversial and the issue here was whether the third piece namely the Lookout Point land was endowment land—and so able to be sold—or reserve land in which case it could not be sold. After extensive research it was found and the committee was satisfied that the status of the land at Lookout Point was endowment land. At the select committee we carefully considered the claims that the land had been set apart as a reserve in or about 1862. Based on extensive research and legal advice we are satisfied that Lookout Point was never set apart as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act Amendment Act 1862. I agreed with the opinion expressed at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the word “reserve” in this particular context rather interestingly means to set apart Crown land as endowments and that it does not enable a public reserve to be endowed. 
Having said that we note that the chairman of the local group Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens Warren Crawford confirmed in January that his group continued to oppose the subdivision. It believed that the land should be retained as a reserve and planted in native trees and suggested that children be involved in that on Arbor Days. The group’s biggest criticism was the lack of consultation and particularly that a local member’s bill had not gone to a select committee with the opportunity for public submissions. As a result this bill did go to the select committee. That brings us to the four well-beings in the purpose section of the Local Government Act 2002. This National-ACT Government is about to ditch that section and replace it with a much narrower and restrictive purpose section. Also this bill although relatively uncontroversial is a good example as to how important it is for us to remember that the four well-beings that are the purpose of local government—namely the economic social cultural and environmental well-beings—are what the “local” is all about. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will just make a point—I am sorry to interrupt. I take it the Greens were not taking the balance of their 5-minute call? It is a 10-minute call—Nicky Wagner. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: It is my great pleasure to talk to this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill and I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for bringing it to the House. It has been a really interesting bill because it has become a bit of a historical whodunit. As we have heard from many of the speakers here tonight the bill originally focused on three pieces of land—three pieces of property—in the Oamaru area. There was little debate about the first two pieces. There was very little debate about the Palmerston Showgrounds—that is Palmerston in Otago—or about Lot 1 DP 345820 which is actually in Oamaru. The reason there was no debate was that both Ngai Tahu and the Department of Conservation agreed with the council and its proposed actions. There was no opposition and there were no submitters on that part of the bill. So those two pieces of land were very easily and quickly dealt with. 
But the status of Lookout Point which is also known as Forrester Heights is a totally different matter. It is a particularly interesting piece of land a beautiful piece of land and a piece of land that the people of Oamaru have used for a long time and have regarded as a reserve. At first glance at the documentation it seemed to have changed description several times over the years. Indeed there have been many twists and turns in how the property has been recorded hence the question over its final status. The people of Oamaru have been dealing with this issue for a long time. I thought it was interesting to note that it has come to the House before and it has been discussed but we have never been able to get a solution. So we were very keen to be able to work our way through this process. It has been fascinating trying to untangle the various iterations. I would like to thank the submitters who came to us for their interest and for the documentation that they produced. There was a lot of detailed information and it was very interesting to us. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee was very conscious that we had to get this right. You do not want to carry on with another error and keep this going on and on. You want to make a final decision so we were very sure that we had to get to the bottom of it and get it right. I think that regardless of the official status this land has been considered by the people of Oamaru as a reserve as a public place for many years. It was interesting to see Eugenie Sage’s photographs of Arbor Day. The people of Oamaru have gone there and planted it over the years. I would like to compliment our advisers. They did an excellent and thorough job researching the history of Lookout Point and establishing its status. It was originally put aside in 1885 by Order in Council as endowment land. It was reserved as endowment land to fund the Oamaru Borough Council. I think that is where the confusion has come about—the word “reserve”. It was reserved it was put aside as endowment land but the word “reserve” has been used in a much wider sense and the people of Oamaru have seen it as a reserve. 
We went back to our advisers and we said that we needed to have a detailed background of that. So they went back to their books and they searched high and low and although there have been many changes—they went through each of the changes as they were recorded—the status of the land has never formally been changed. Although there were many changes in how the status was recorded and the way it went through the process it was never formally changed. Our advisers told us that Land Information New Zealand agreed with that the Department of Conservation agreed with that and Ngai Tahu agreed with that. But understanding the level of controversy over the land in the community the select committee checked again and double-checked and checked again. We are convinced that despite the recording errors the status of the land is still as originally set aside—reserved—in 1885 by Order in Council for the purpose of endowment to aid the funds of the Oamaru Borough Council which now of course is the Waitaki District Council. 
The committee tried to make this very clear in our report. So we were very disappointed to read the headline in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that said: “Forrester Heights status likely to change”—obviously it had missed the whole point of the report and the nuances behind it—and it commented: “The reserve land status of land at Forrester Heights at Oamaru is almost certain to be revoked after a parliamentary select committee report agreed that its status should be changed.” Well I have to say to the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that that is not right. The status of the land has never officially changed which just goes to show that you cannot believe everything you read in the newspapers so remember that. The issue is emotive and there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the land. You can see that the newspaper has mixed up the purpose of the bill because what it has ended up doing is focusing on the public’s desire to use and enjoy the reserve land. That is not relevant to this bill. 
We all understand that people like reserve land and that people like green space in their community. And I do have to agree with Phil Twyford that although people enjoy that this is to do with local decision-making—nothing to do with the bill at all. Unfortunately I do not agree with all Mr Twyford says but in this case I think he made a very valid point. Everybody does understand that local people want to enjoy the ongoing use of reserve land. Our job was not to decide whether this was reserve land or not; it was to clarify the status and the historical background and that is what we did. What happens now to that land must be a local decision and then people must talk to their council about that. It is nothing to do with us. Our job is to clarify the status. This is endowment land. There is absolutely no doubt about it. It is not a reserve. The confusion I think has been about the fact that it was reserved as endowment land. But I think we can be very clear and the committee was sure. 
I would like to thank Jacqui Dean for sponsoring this bill. I think she has done a really good job. It has been a difficult time and there has been a lot of controversy in the community. I would like to thank the advisers for their detailed careful and thorough research and for checking double-checking and checking again. And I would like to thank the committee for its commitment to getting this right. We did not just skate over the top of it. We were sure that it was important that people had clarity that they knew what the results were and that we did not go on perpetrating something that was not true. Thank you. I support this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 23 
Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 November. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour is supporting this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill of Scott Simpson’s to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We are supporting it with a number of reservations. I want to make three points in the 5 minutes that I have tonight. 
The first is that the Attorney-General has raised a number of concerns about the bill. Labour’s view is that unless we feel at the select committee that these concerns have been addressed satisfactorily we will not be supporting the bill’s further progress. The Attorney-General has ruled that the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as it erodes the right to be presumed innocent. I want to quote the Attorney-General who says: “the provisions of the Bill are too broad and are not in proportion to the objective. I have no evidence that the number of motorists who now escape responsibility for offending but would be captured by the proposed amendment is significant.” Well that is a pretty serious objection. I would note that Scott Simpson I think has been quoted as saying that he does not know how many people would be captured by the closing of this loophole. In fact I think he has speculated that it might be a handful of people. We would question whether in fact this is a good use of the House’s time to bring a bill like this to the House without that basic groundwork having been done and without some data upon which to base the premise that this bill relies on. 
The Attorney-General also found that the wording “for any reason” would mean that circumstances such as a health professional not being available for example to administer the blood test at the time would be a suitable reason and that does not seem to be the intention of the bill. So that is our first point: the Attorney-General has raised some serious issues both drafting issues and about the data upon which the premise of this bill is based in terms of the number of people who supposedly are evading the law. Those things need to be addressed. 
I should probably have pointed out for the benefit of people listening or watching who were not here for the first couple of speeches on the bill that what this bill aims to do is to tackle the issue of people who are physically unable to give a blood test once they have been stopped for drink-driving who take a breath test and then nominate—as they are able to do under the law—to have a blood test. I think the law allows 10 minutes for the person to make that decision. Once that person nominates that they will have a blood test the evidence of the breathalyser is inadmissible at that point. The problem that the member Scott Simpson is trying to solve with this bill is that there are some people—we do not know how many but there are some—who for whatever reason are physically unable to give a blood sample. They are somehow gaming the system—this is the suggestion—by opting for a blood test thereby making the breathalyser result inadmissible but they are unable then to deliver a blood sample. That is the bill in a nutshell. 
As I have said the Attorney-General has some problems with that and raised the possibility—I think in fact Mike Noon from the Automobile Association raised the possibility—that the police for example could say that they do not have medical staff present and therefore that would render the evidence of the breathalyser inadmissible and the person would get off. So those are some concerns about it. 
The other thing that has to be said in this debate is that there is irony in the fact that a National member would bring to the House this bill which would close a loophole affecting—how many we do not know—possibly a handful of people when this National-led Government has consistently refused to raise the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That is called a lowering. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —lowering the limit; thank you to that member—in the face of overwhelming international evidence that 0.05 is the gold standard. That change alone would save up to 30 lives a year but this Government will not do it because of the optics apparently. Thank you. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to rise for the dinner break early. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I would like to start speaking on the first reading of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member Scott Simpson for introducing a bill with the very worthy aim of reducing drink-driving. I think we can all agree that this is an incredibly worthy objective. The Green Party would like nothing more than to see a reduction in the amount of dangerous drink-driving that does occur already in New Zealand. 
However having considered this bill as it has been introduced I do think that it falls well short of the mark. It will do very little to reduce drink-driving if anything at all. There are multiple ways that we could approach the problem of drink-driving. I think that it is a serious problem that the Green Party would like to see addressed and we would be very happy to support members on the National side of the House or any members in the House or the Government to this end of reducing drink-driving. 
I think that the most obvious legislative change that the Government could make to reduce drink-driving would be to lower the legal limit for all drivers. I suppose I have a huge question in my mind: why is that sort of initiative not being taken? If this Government was actually serious about reducing drink-driving surely it would be willing to take a step that so many other countries around the world have already taken: to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05. All the evidence shows it would make a dramatic difference in increasing safety on our roads and increasing the safety and well-being of New Zealanders—whether they be in cars or not—if they are in the land transport environment in New Zealand. So it is with some regret that I note that this bill will actually do nothing at all to reduce the drink-driving that occurs in New Zealand. 
Another very effective policy that the National Party or members in the National Party could take to reduce drink-driving and reduce onerous regulations which I believe they are opposed to would be to remove the requirements in district plans that currently force bars and pubs to provide massive off-street car-parks. On the one hand we have this policy a public policy that says “One shall not drink and then drive. One shall not drive under the influence of alcohol.” yet on the other hand patrons of bars and of pubs cannot avoid spending the money for the large off-street car-parks that district councils are forcing bars and pubs to put in through their onerous district council regulations. I know personally that I have spoken with a lawyer whose client had a prominent well-patronised bar in downtown Christchurch—this was prior to the earthquake—and that bar because of the requirements in the Christchurch district plan was required to put in 100 car-parks. That is 100 car-parks that they were forced to put in. It was a third of their overhead so we are talking about a pretty substantial cost imposed on developers which results in nothing if not people being more likely to drink and drive. It just seems to me that this is an easy policy win. It is a low-cost way of giving councils the signal that it is actually up to developers whether or not they are going to provide off-street car-parks. But particularly in the case of bars and pubs I believe it would be extremely important for them not to be forced to provide off-street car-parks. 
The question for the House is whether we really want to legislate to address what was only one problem in maybe one or two cases ever. That is what this bill does. It is for that reason that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill at the first reading. We simply do not believe that it passes the test of being necessary or being sufficient to address the problem of drink-driving in New Zealand. We are particularly concerned at the proposed wording in subsection (5) inserted by clause 4 which is very very broad and very vague. What this says is that it is going to change the rules around the admissibility of breath tests for any reason at all even though supposedly purportedly the bill is being introduced specifically for the case of when a blood specimen is not able— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Time has expired. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to talk in strong support of this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. The principal reason is that I wrote it. As members know only one bill can go into the ballot and I do hope that my Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill does eventually get pulled out. In the meantime I pass this bill on to my very good friend and colleague Mr Simpson who had the great good fortune to have this bill pulled from the ballot. I congratulate him on that good luck but also on the very careful consideration in the process of bringing this to the House for its first reading. I congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done. 
This bill actually had its genesis in a conversation I had with a senior constable in Dunedin who just happened to be my brother. It is actually quite advantageous coming from a very large family: one gets lots of policy advice on matters like aviation defence law and order resource management law education health and so on. This was one of those conversations where he described an incident that had occurred to him in Dunedin not dissimilar to the case that is described in  
Police v Childs 
 described by Scott Simpson in his contribution. Having pulled over a person suspected of drink-driving an evidential breath test was taken where the fellow blew somewhere in the region of 660—clearly over the limit by that measure. He elected blood but the blood was unable to be taken because he was an intravenous drug user and his veins were not of sufficient quality to draw the necessary blood. Suspecting that the driver was also under the influence of illegal substances—interestingly enough an impairment test was introduced under the drug-driving laws passed by this Government in 2009 when I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Being the new member on that committee I actually undertook the first impairment test which was onerous. Nevertheless this fellow— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did you pass? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I passed yes having been completely sober at 10.30 in the morning which is the case I reassure the House usually. But in fact this fellow also passed and therefore the doors were closed to any form of prosecution under the Land Transport Act as it exists right now. The judge addressed this issue and in fact the police I think were quite optimistic in their attempts to charge this fellow with both refusing to permit a blood specimen or in the alternative driving with excess breath alcohol. Clearly the latter is not allowed under this bill and that is what the bill intends to remedy. But he certainly permitted them to have a go and in fact he challenged them to have a go at getting blood out of this person’s veins. I want to quote the judgment; in fact I think this quotes the counsel for the defence in the  
Childs 
 case where he said in his submission that “Had Parliament considered it appropriate to allow the prosecution to rely on the evidential breath test despite an election for blood taking place it would have provided for such an occurrence and that the appropriate place to review circumstances such as the inability to collect a blood sample despite compliance with procedure is Parliament.” That was in July 2012. Well Parliament through this member’s bill had already addressed it and this bill was in the ballot. 
I want to come on to the question of the Attorney-General’s opinion in respect of whether or not this bill actually breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would respectfully suggest that the person writing the opinion on behalf of the Attorney-General is somewhat confused when he or she is describing that the effect of the bill “would therefore be that the results of some positive evidential breath tests that would not otherwise be admissible in evidence would then become admissible.” I think they are confusing the word “admissible” with the word “admitted”. The evidence is admissible and indeed if blood is not elected would be valid evidence before a judge. However the law prevents it from being admitted into evidence and I think that is a subtle but significant difference. 
The other part of the opinion of the Attorney-General is that the presumption of innocence does not apply in this case and I would again respectfully challenge that. The defendant with whatever evidence is presented before the judge or jury is presumed innocent in just the same way that had blood not been elected the breath evidence would be admissible and the presumption of innocence would prevail. However I do accept that this is an issue for the select committee to deal with when it comes before it and I hope that it does. I am sure the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under David Bennett will look at the issue very very closely. I strongly support this bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse made a proper concession just now that this bill the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill does need careful discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I hope given that the two larger parties at least are supporting the bill to that stage that it will get that careful scrutiny and discussion. I see that the chair of the select committee is here and is listening to the debate so I think the House can have that confident expectation. 
The bill in the name of Scott Simpson—and I congratulate him on his good fortune in having it drawn from the ballot—aims to cure what I think he concedes is a very small number of cases where unusual events conspire to prevent a blood specimen being taken and the example that I think has been used in a number of the speeches to date is the one where there was a person who was addicted to drugs and had compromised veins. The current situation is this. A breath result cannot be used as evidence once a blood test has been elected by the person who has been stopped at the side of the road or at a checkpoint or what have you for that purpose. The bill would provide that breath tests can be used if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant and the words of the bill are “for any reason”. 
I think the concern that I would want to put on the record is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. I think people can see that it is a useful thing to try to plug a loophole but I think that what we do need to do is make sure that we do not as in the old clichéd proverb use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What I would not want to see by passing the legislation if that is the ultimate fate of the bill is the legitimising of a failure by the police to take effective action to ensure that there was a blood taker available in circumstances where the legislation would set out that expectation. The problem that I have just on my reading of the bill is the breadth of the expression “for any reason”. It is very wide. It would include there being no blood taker on the roster that night. I know and I know that other members in the House know that police go to a heck of a lot of trouble at the moment to make sure that they can comply with the law. They do go to great lengths with their rosters to make sure that there is somebody who can take blood if that is the election that the driver on the scene makes. 
Let us remember that these safeguards exist for good reason. The breath test is generally pretty reliable but we know that there are cases where that has not proved to be the case. We should also remember that random stopping is an innovation in our law. It is an exception—and it was a controversial exception at the time it was introduced—to the principle that there ought to be reasonable cause for a seizure or search. We have seen the benefit of this innovation because we have seen the road toll come down. So we all support it. But we want to make sure that the safeguards remain. We want to make sure that what we do not do is inadvertently give the police who are pressured always for resources some opportunity to cut corners by for example saying: “Well we don’t need to have a taker of blood on the roster because we’ve got this marvellous exception that Scott Simpson has given us and it means that for any reason we can ignore that requirement.” 
I just wanted to make that contribution in my speech. I think the policy of this bill makes a lot of sense but we do not want to invalidate the entire regime that Parliament has carefully put in place over a number of years—breath test then blood test but the blood test as a proper back-up in the case that it is needed—to protect liberty and to ensure that people going about their lawful business are not subject to penalties. So in order to support this legislation further past the select committee the Labour Party would need to see at the very least that matter considered and resolved appropriately. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank members for the many considered contributions to the debate from both the Labour and National sides of the House. First of all I would like to commend the proponent of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill Mr Scott Simpson. As a member from the Waikato region as well I know Scott and he is a very very loyal constituent member who has done a great job for his people advocating for them time and time again and delivering results for his electorate. I think they are very lucky to have such a high-calibre member and I think his exceptional degree of dedication and devotion to his electorate will shine through in future elections. So that is very very good. I also commend Mike Woodhouse our whip who did a great job in putting this idea forward in an earlier stage but— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: What about Phil Heatley? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh I do not know about Phil Heatley actually. But Mr Simon Bridges? Yes that Minister is going to help us through this process. He is an excellent Minister as well. 
I think it is pretty obvious what the bill is trying to do and members of the House have talked about it. I know that Phil might need it said again so that he can grasp it but it is not that hard. There are some issues around how it will actually be done. That is the case with members’ bills. Often we put a bill forward and the process of getting official advice and of letting members discuss the content of the bill through the parliamentary process in this House and through the select committee process is vital to make changes and get the bill right. I would like to thank the Labour Opposition for supporting this bill going forward so that we can go through that process and we can have a look at it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Unlike that side. They don’t support our bills. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I see Darien Fenton over there. She is one of those very strong and very effective Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee along with Phil Twyford and Andrew Little. We look forward to their working constructively as they normally do in the committee. It is a very good select committee actually. We have very cordial relations in the committee. We have efficient and timely meetings and we deal with issues of great importance. 
Brendan Horan 
: What about the rail submissions? The Gisborne to Napier line? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Now we are getting New Zealand First. Those members always have to cause trouble. They cannot sit quietly in a debate like this. I guess there is a conspiracy theory about this bill according to the New Zealand First mantra of politics. So what is the problem with it? 
Brendan Horan 
: It’s actually the first sensible bill we’ve heard from that side for quite some time. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is the first sensible bill. Are they voting for it? That is going to be the question. That will be the issue. Whether they can vote Yes will be another question. 
I do want to congratulate members of the committee on the way they work together and I think they will undertake to work in that way on this bill. Scott Simpson is actually a member of the committee and a very fine member as well. I think he is going to have a lot of questions tomorrow at the committee meeting. I think his important role— 
Kris Faafoi 
: He better read the bill then. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —yes—on the committee as the proponent of the bill means he will take an active interest in how it passes through the political and legislative process. 
I guess that in the sense that we have always wanted to see the safest and strongest roading system that we can have it is important that we make these changes where and if necessary to look after public safety. The No. 1 thing that members of this House are entrusted to do in regard to these kinds of bills is to make sure we look after our young people and our drivers and take the approach of trying to do the best we can so that we do not have issues where people try to game the system or take advantage of it and so that there is a fair and equitable system out there that applies for all. Those are the words that New Zealand First members should listen to—“fair and equitable”. They are words that your leader holds dear but to you as a party I say that we look forward to you supporting this bill because it is fair and equitable. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is the member calling? 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I am calling Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I did not hear you.  
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 That was probably because of the noise coming from the other side of the room. Anyway I would like to say this in response to what I have just heard. In fact yes New Zealand First does support the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. We think it is a common-sense approach and yes we do think it is fair and equitable. It is fair to say that. We do think in particular that there is a defect in the Act as it is at present where a positive evidential breath test is not admissible simply because the suspect person has elected a blood test but is in circumstances where no blood test is possible. That is a defect. It is a hole in the legislation and it does need to be fixed. 
New Zealand First is very much in support of all practical means to make sure that such loopholes are closed and that people who are in fact guilty of drink-driving are caught. Provided that that is done with due process of law then we think we should be as tight as possible in making sure that all such people are in fact prosecuted and prosecuted successfully. It is just not good enough that somebody should be able to elect to take a blood test knowing in fact that a blood test is unlikely to be possible and then to be in a position where their breath test is not admissible. 
I would have to say though that I do not think that the drafting of this particular bill is very good at all. In fact the provision— 
Brendan Horan 
: Grammatically incorrect. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Well that is true. My friend Mr Horan has said that it is grammatically incorrect and it is poor grammar. It says in clause 4(2): “After section 77(4) insert: ‘(5) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant for any reason.’ ” What kind of grammar is “was not able to be taken”? I do not know who wrote this but they need to go back to school and learn some grammar. But more particularly we need good drafting of this bill. The bill should be amended so as to read for example: “Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if it was not possible or practicable for a blood specimen to be taken …”. That is what I presume it means and if that is what it is intended to mean that is actually what it should say not these poorly drafted words that we see before us. 
When we see members’ bills coming forward in this way people should at least take the trouble to draft them properly so that not only is the English correct but also it actually says what it is intended to say. I think that the word “possible” or the word “practicable” is what is intended so we want this to be amended. We want to see that it covers only situations where it is actually not possible to get a blood test or where it is not practicable to do so. So we would expect to see this amended accordingly. 
Another thing that it should do is this. The last few words are “taken from the defendant for any reason.” That is not good enough either. That is also poor drafting because what we do not really mean is “any reason.” and what we should do is tighten that a little bit as well. I think it should say for example “unavoidable reason.” or words to that effect. 
New Zealand First if it going to continue to support this bill in the future would like to see that it is properly drafted and amended accordingly. But I would like to go on and say this: drink-driving remains one of New Zealand’s most serious safety issues and I do not think we are doing nearly as much in this country as we should about it. This is a very small measure. It is worthwhile but we would expect of the Government that it takes a lot more action on controlling drink-driving. 
The new amendments to the alcohol bill will take us a little bit further in respect of that but we also need to take further actions in respect of who may drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege and there must be further restrictions on doing it especially in relation to people who are affected not just by alcohol but also by any situation in which their driving ability is impaired. 
So we would like to see much more comprehensive legislation than we see here. In particular we need to address much more the behaviour of people who drink excessively. We need to be tougher with the penalties—much tougher than we are now—and we need to widen the scope of offences that already exist. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It gives me a huge pleasure to speak in favour of the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. May I congratulate the initiator of this bill Scott Simpson the member for Coromandel. This is indeed a— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It was Woodhouse who drafted it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well maybe it was. So there is another Government member to congratulate on this very good bill. I am also pleased to be standing to the right of the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett. I know that he will very ably ensure that the bill goes through the select committee very expeditiously. 
But I want to just go back in history a bit of time to when I was a young medico and the days even—believe it or not—before accurate breath testing. On the North Shore there was a very infamous doctor. What we used to do when the drivers were brought in was have them firstly undergo the “walk along the line straight” test. They were then asked a few questions and if they failed both they would have the choice either to have their blood taken for testing or to be put into the cell. The very infamous doctor was infamous because he was not good at getting blood. I vividly remember going in when I was a locum for him one day and this guy had anticipated and said that he would go for the cell thanks. But he was very relieved to see me and said: “Look I feel a little bit embarrassed now that I’ve opted for a night in the cell. If I’d known you were on—you are pretty slick at taking blood—I would have opted for the blood test and it would have saved me the night.” However the relevance is this: today we do have pretty accurate breath testing. Of course if someone opts against having an evidential blood test as well then I think it is quite right and proper that the breath test is indeed taken. 
There is the issue of those who have bad veins and it is quite true that some number do have bad veins whether they are those who take drugs all the time or perhaps someone on dialysis therapy. I can think of Joeli Vidiri the great rugby player who sadly is on dialysis treatment and has just about no vein in his body for a blood test other than the jugular. Quite clearly it would be inappropriate to take a blood test if that was relevant in that case. 
So we see here a bill that is elegant in its simplicity and absolutely relevant in terms of the mechanism for the remedy to forgoing the blood test when someone opts not to have it. I can say that I am delighted to support it. I hope indeed that New Zealand First members who sounded as though they were wavering a little bit a moment or two ago when I— 
Brendan Horan 
: No there was never a waver. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: They are not wavering? That is good. There is definitely support coming from New Zealand First and Mr Horan can guarantee that his party will be supporting it. I am very glad to hear that. This is an excellent bill. Scott Simpson is to be congratulated. I certainly commend it to the House. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be concluding this first reading debate on my Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. As various speakers in the debate have indicated this is not a bill that is going to have an impact on a particularly large number of people but the people it will have an impact on are currently able to literally evade the provisions made by this House in the principal Act regarding drink-driving and they are literally able to get off scot-free. 
I want to thank members for their considered debate for their contributions to the debate so far. I am very much looking forward to participating in the select committee process under the capable and very able chairmanship of David Bennett. I know that once we get it to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we will address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate so far. I was particularly pleased early on in this exercise to receive from Mike Noon of the Automobile Association support in principle from that organisation. It too understands that there has been a very significant attitudinal change towards drink-driving in this nation over the last generation or so since Dr Hutchison was practising medicine as a young intern some years ago— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Just a few years ago. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: —just a couple of years ago—and things have changed a little bit. Society’s attitude towards those who drive while under the influence has changed significantly and for even a small number of people to be able to evade the intention of this House in bringing them to remedy for the consequences of their poor social behaviour—and indeed their illegal driving—I think is a matter that needs addressing. 
I want to spend just a minute referring for the sake of those members who did not hear it in the original speech to the judgment relating to the case of  
Police v Childs 
 heard in the Rotorua District Court just this year—in fact in July of this year. Judge MacKenzie examined all the current case law and had to dismiss the case against Childs. He had blown a screening test—that is the one where you have got the little electronic device where you have to give your name and address—and he proved positive on that. He then blew an evidential breath test and then was given the option of a blood test which he was perfectly entitled to take under the existing law. However Mr Childs was an intravenous drug user of some long number of years and his veins—he knew I suspect—were utterly unable to be tapped for the required sample of blood. So after 40 minutes—40 minutes—of attempting to draw a significant and appropriate blood sample the medical officer was not able to do so. When the case came before Judge MacKenzie he had to throw it out because the situation of the facts presented meant that Childs was statute-barred from being prosecuted because no blood sample was available to him. 
I think that is wrong and even if it is for a small number of people each year it is still wrong and for this House not to address what was actually an oversight in the original legislation—in the original 1998 legislation—I think is something that we need to turn our attention to now. Thus the measure of the bill. 
I want to thank the originator of the bill my colleague the senior Government whip Michael Woodhouse who did indeed draft the original bill. I am sure I can vouch for his grammar and the accuracy thereof. He has a good education. 
The Attorney-General’s report is something that is worth a small consideration because the report does sit on the Table of this House. But like other speakers on this side I respectfully reject the position that the Attorney-General has taken on this matter. It will still be the case of the police as in any criminal matter in our criminal jurisdiction to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the measure of all criminal convictions in New Zealand and nothing would change under my bill. The Automobile Association in its support of the bill has indicated that it too would like to consider narrowing the clause a wee bit and that is a matter that will be rightly and properly addressed at the select committee. I am looking forward to participating in the process. I thank members for their consideration so far and commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill 
First Reading 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. There are several populations of very attractive jewelled geckos on Banks Peninsula and also a population on the Otago Peninsula. They are attractive to us because they are the most wonderful creatures—green with yellow and white markings. They are pretty unique as well giving birth to live young and also being active during the day. These geckos endemic to the South Island of New Zealand are highly protected and it is illegal to disturb or capture them. Unfortunately jewelled geckos are also attractive to wildlife smugglers who if they can get them past our borders can make an extraordinary amount of money from them. 
Smugglers come to New Zealand often posing as tourists. Some of them are acting as agents for overseas collectors and have maps and global positioning system points provided by overseas syndicates with the detailed locations of where to find our geckos. They might hire a campervan and they might visit and then revisit the same site on the Otago Peninsula or Banks Peninsula over a number of years targeting our iconic species over and over again and literally ripping off our heritage. The smugglers are driven by the big money that they can get at the huge trade fairs overseas held in Europe. These trade fairs are where our native wildlife such as jewelled skink are openly sold and if you go on the internet which is easy enough to do these days you can see pictures of them in plastic containers like Tupperware or GladWare containers sitting there on perhaps a paper towel and they are easily identifiable by way by their markings which are pretty individual to them. 
So they are openly sold both on the internet and also at these large trade fairs reaching prices often of more than $10000 each and more if it happens to be a pregnant female. Just recently a pregnant female was caught in the hands of a potential smuggler at our border in Christchurch. She was pregnant with two young inside her. I do not know the price of that female but the loss to New Zealand and to the native population is a— 
Scott Simpson 
: Priceless loss to New Zealand. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well it is a priceless loss to New Zealanders and is pretty keenly felt by those of us who are neighbourly with these skinks in Otago and indeed Canterbury. For the Otago population of jewelled gecko poachers are now a larger threat than even cats and ferrets and it is estimated that the population has been decimated by up to one-third over a period of 5 years leaving a population of fewer than 5000 in Otago. 
The Wildlife Enforcement Group which was set up by the Government is doing wonderful work. It is based in the Customs Service together with the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation. In 2010 a German gentleman Manfred Bachmann was caught in Christchurch by the Wildlife Enforcement Group with 16 jewelled gecko in a backpack on his person. He pleaded guilty to being in possession of absolutely protected wildlife under the Wildlife Act and was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail and in my view that is not enough. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does not only apply to the jewelled gecko of course. Plenty of New Zealand’s precious and protected flora fauna and natural and historic resources are under threat. The new penalties proposed in the bill relating to animals will also cover the poaching and smuggling of tuatara and of parrots. Some penalties in the current legislation are far too low. Upon sentencing German national Manfred Bachmann who was found guilty of smuggling jewelled gecko Judge Farish who was presiding noted: “Given the value of these creatures perhaps the penalty needs to be increased to deter you and other people from thinking it’s appropriate to come here and steal these valuable creatures from our country.” I could not agree more with those sentiments. 
This bill proposes amendments to the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. Instead of a sentence of 15 weeks in jail for smuggling jewelled gecko the likes of Mr Bachmann would face up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $200000. Maybe that would send a strong message to him and his like in the international smuggling community and they will know that they are not welcome here in New Zealand with their smuggling ways. 
The bill not only increases penalties for offences but also provides a consistent approach across a number of Acts. Under the bill fines for reserves and national parks will come into line with each other and will provide clarity across the main regulations administered by the Department of Conservation. 
The message we want to send people through this legislation should it be passed is that New Zealand is not should not and will not be a soft touch for overseas smugglers coming to New Zealand to steal our natural heritage. So this bill sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand wildlife and our natural areas very seriously. We New Zealanders pride ourselves on our clean green image. It is imperative that we look after our natural environment because it is our greatest asset. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties punishment and enforcement. 
I want to finish my contribution tonight and my introduction to this bill by commending the commitment and the work of the Department of Conservation. I also want to commend the commitment and the work of the Customs Service and also those personnel in the Ministry for Primary Industries in their work with the Wildlife Enforcement Group and I hope that this bill will give them more teeth. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat Jacqui Dean and say that her presentation of her Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill was spoken with some insight and passion and I commend both. I am very pleased to say that Labour is supporting this bill. 
Mrs Dean said she wanted to see better protection of New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources and she talked about the jewelled gecko on Banks Peninsula and Otago Peninsula. As the member of Parliament who used to represent Banks Peninsula before it was stolen unkindly from me by the Hon Amy Adams and put into the Selwyn electorate I was privileged to see those geckos on a number of occasions and I really enjoyed them. I know that a former Minister of Conservation the Hon Dr Nick Smith was part of those experiences as well when he was not kayaking in Akaroa Harbour waiting for a reserve to be put there. The reserve still is not there Dr Smith so get back in that job and let us get it progressed. 
I remember not very long ago having a bill that made quite a small amendment to the Resource Management Act but it was one that in my view was quite significant because it changed the part of the Resource Management Act that allowed for private enterprise to compulsorily acquire land in order to progress their projects. I thought it was something that really deserved cross-party support in the House. I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in that debate— 
Grant Robertson 
: They’re always memorable. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Perhaps my colleague Grant Robertson is correct—they are always memorable. I certainly remember this one because he said that we should not do little bits of changes even though the bill was a member’s bill. He said we should look at the whole issue—we should look at a comprehensive approach. He was talking about the Resource Management Act. So I am looking forward to Dr Smith’s speech tonight when he with the same consistency of principle refuses to support his colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill on the basis that it is not even a tinkering. It is not worthy of even the description of tinkering. It is such a small amendment. But it is significant. It is very comparable to the Resource Management Act amendment I introduced which Nick Smith railed against and then led the vote against. So whilst supporting this bill I look forward to his contribution because I will be giving him marks out of 10 for his consistency and I would like him to score highly on that point. 
This bill ensures that not only are the penalties for as the member described trying to smuggle our precious gecko etc. out of the country or releasing pests into natural reserves which is another one of the penalties increased but actually they are made more consistent and I think that is a very good thing. At the moment if someone released a stoat into a nature reserve the highest penalty they could receive would be a $500 fine or 1 month’s imprisonment. That in itself is quite bizarre because $500 does not seem all that much actually but 1 month’s imprisonment seems like quite a lot. So I think there is some inconsistency within even the existing penalty regime. Under the National Parks Act if part of a national park is carved off and converted to pasture or to a stand of trees that then is milled the highest penalty is $2500 or 3 months’ imprisonment. So there is quite an inconsistency between those offences. But if those same offences happened in a conservation area such as the Kaimanawa Conservation Park the maximum penalty for the same offences would be $10000 or 12 months in prison. So again how did all of this come about? Well it came about because we did not have an overview in the way that the member has provided for in this member’s bill. And we know that the areas that national parks protect are typically of higher value than conservation areas so it is even more foolish. 
 So while Labour will be supporting this bill and I certainly look forward to the debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee if that is indeed where it is referred to after the vote I have to say that out of all of the things that are happening in the conservation space I would have thought that a member of the Government might have used the opportunity of a member’s bill to make sure that the fundamental role of the Department of Conservation was secured and perhaps even—it might be a bit dramatic for the National Party—enhanced not just left as the status quo. The Hon Nick Smith’s eyes are lighting up because I know that is what he would want to do with it; not just retain the status quo but strengthen the role of the Department of Conservation. What we have seen over the last 4 years is a real dumbing down of the department. I think that is a huge shame and it is something we will pay for over the longer term quite significantly. 
The National Party sees the environment and the economy as separate entities that need to be balanced rather than seeing them as dependent on each other or two sides of the one coin which is the way Labour sees those issues. So the Department of Conservation has lost its place as a critical player in our public policy. We do not have the advocacy role. We certainly do not have in the Minister an advocate for conservation issues. We saw the Minister just stand back and watch Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce bowl over her views in terms of mining of schedule 4 land. It was not really until thousands of New Zealanders got on the street and protested against the possibility not of mining—the protest was not against mining—but of mining in our most special places the pieces of land that are protected under schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Those pieces of land are there for a particular reason and they should be protected. That is why they are put under schedule 4 of that legislation. 
We know that the Department of Conservation has had massive staff cuts. During the submissions on the Game Animal Council Bill we heard a lot about the relationship the Department of Conservation has with local people in provincial areas in particular. In some parts of the country the Department of Conservation works alongside recreational hunters works alongside iwi works alongside community groups works alongside schools to make sure that those conservation values are seen as part of the ongoing resources and win the support of the community. But what we have seen in other areas is that through the staff cuts that the National Government has imposed on the Department of Conservation the staff have been centralised they have been moved to other parts of the country and those relationships are just not possible. There are not local people doing that job any more. We know that over the next 12 months we are going to see further staff cuts in the Department of Conservation. 
One of the areas that are of most concern is the lack of scientific research that is now available as a core function of the Department of Conservation. If we want evidence-based research if we want best practice if we want to be really confident that the decisions made in regard to conservation are made on the basis of evidence and on the basis of good information we need that scientific base. We have seen good scientists—some of the best scientists—leave the Department of Conservation because the work is not there for them. Even when there is some work available they do not get the satisfaction any more of knowing that that work is going anywhere. 
I hope that the Minister of Conservation when it comes to the next big decision that she has to make is able to get some courage which she has not demonstrated in many recent decision-making processes. That decision is in regard to protection for Maui’s dolphins. The submissions have closed just this week and thousands of New Zealanders put in submissions calling for protection of the most endangered dolphin and a dolphin that is New Zealand’s dolphin. There are only 55 adult Maui’s dolphins left. I implore the Minister to use her power as Minister of Conservation and to not be pushed back by the people in her Cabinet who do not care nearly as much about our dolphin or our reputation internationally as they do about so-called economic benefits. There is a bottom line and I think that the future of a species that we are responsible for protecting should be a big part of that bottom line. I want the Minister responsible for fisheries to put some money into sustainable fishing practices for New Zealand so that instead of the fishing industry losing out in a decision to protect the Maui’s dolphins we can get a win-win situation. But at the moment that is not happening. The Minister of Conservation is standing by and letting the Minister for Primary Industries run the place. I think that is a great shame. 
The conservation values that we have in New Zealand are important to us. This bill will give us an opportunity to make better sense of our penalty regime but also to give better protection to some— 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in the name of Jacqui Dean. I would like to congratulate Jacqui Dean on having two bills in the House this afternoon. It is great work and she is a hard-working member for Waitaki. 
I think we are all concerned that New Zealand’s unique plants and animals are at risk and we want to be able to protect them better. Our plants and animals are exceptional. They are totally unique highly desirable and greatly prized and a real temptation to the collectors of the world who are always looking for the unusual the beautiful and particularly the unobtainable. Unfortunately there are many collectors globally who are happy to pay big money for these creatures. They will pay for the skinks for the geckos for our birds and really for anything that is unique and different and that comes from the other side of the world. We have also seen a dramatic increase in violence against creatures as well as the poaching the stealing and the smuggling. New Zealanders all find these behaviours abhorrent because we are proud of our country we are proud of our plants birds and reptiles and we want to make sure that they stay here. We want to protect our natural spaces and the birds and creatures who live in them. 
This bill introduces bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. We need to have a consistency across the 5 Acts amended by this bill. It was interesting that the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned the lack of consistency. That is what this bill is driving at: consistency and penalties that deter unacceptable behaviour. We are serious about this. We are serious about deterring this type of crime. It is not just a crime against our flora and fauna; it is also a crime against the people of New Zealand. So we are introducing a maximum fine of $10000 or a 2-year jail sentence for offences conducted in both reserves and national parks. 
I was horrified to find out that collectors from Asia and from Europe are particularly interested in our unique reptiles particularly creatures like the jewelled geckos that as Jacqui Dean has mentioned live in Banks Peninsula and Otago. These fetch enormous prices overseas I have heard of up to $25000 each. They are actually relatively easy to catch in the remote parts of New Zealand and they are quite easy to transport as well. Dozens of endangered lizards disappear from their native habitats every year. Many are in the hands of suspected organised criminal groups who sell them on the internet. New Zealand geckos are particularly prized because they give birth to their young live so if you get a pregnant one you actually get a whole lot of free geckos as well. 
In the past 3 years seven people have been caught smuggling protected geckos and skinks out of the South Island. One group including a German from Uganda who was sentenced to 15 weeks in jail was caught with 16 jewelled geckos. They were packed in tubes; others put them down their pants or in their clothing. But these 16 geckos were valued at over $200000 and at least nine of them were pregnant. The geckos usually end up on a German website where traders claim that they have been bred in captivity. It is not true and it is not right. I know that the Department of Conservation and Wildlife Enforcement Group are working very hard to protect these geckos and skinks. I support this bill because it does show how seriously we are taking these issues and how much we value our birds and reptiles. I commend this bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. As other speakers have noted there is a lot to be said positively about this bill in the sense that it takes seriously the issues that have been raised about smuggling and about protecting our flora and fauna by increasing fines and trying to address some of the inconsistency within the various fines regimes that cover our conservation estate and that cover the flora and fauna that as the previous speaker Nicky Wagner has said we are all so proud of in New Zealand. It always strikes me when we look at legislation that is about fines and regimes for penalties that we find ourselves in the House continuously trying to update them like some kind of inflation index here within the House. 
I do wonder at the wisdom sometimes of legislation that sets dollar figures and then expects time to stand still and those dollar figures to somehow mean something. As Ruth Dyson said earlier when you have a situation where it is a $500 fine or 1 year in prison that indicates that time has got away on the legislation. I do think that overall there is a question of whether it is wise to be setting in legislation particular dollar figure penalties when in fact what we are trying to do is express the will of Parliament about the seriousness of these offences—whether actually we are better off with some other kind of system that does not require us to come back as some form of inflation index every few years and make the changes that are being proposed tonight by Jacqui Dean. But that is obviously not in the scope of this particular bill and the fines increases and penalty increases that are indicated in the bill seem to me to be reasonable. Certainly from the Labour Party’s point of view we are keen to see this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee to discuss the wisdom of the penalties regimes as they stand. 
But if we are talking about making things consistent there is one thing that we can say that is absolutely consistent about this Government’s approach to conservation matters and that is the fact that from the day its members entered office they have undermined the operations of the Department of Conservation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s rubbish! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Dr Smith says it is rubbish. Let us go through the record. The 2009 Budget cut $54 million out from the Department of Conservation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Over how many years? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —with 400 job losses Dr Smith. That was projected just in 2009. Dr Smith ask over how many years. It does not matter Dr Smith. Taking $54 million out of the budget of the Department of Conservation undermines the work. It is all very well for National members to come to this House with bills that look like they care about the conservation estate and that improve the penalties regime but sitting behind that is a cut of $54 million from the Department of Conservation. 
In September last year they announced that they were cutting 96 members of staff at the Department of Conservation. That is staff from 12 conservancies right around the country. Members of this House will know as they travel around the country the impact of those cuts on those local conservancies. It is not like it was the great back-office cuts that we were told about. These are people in regional New Zealand who are charged with protecting our conservation estate whom this Government has cut. These people include the scientists. As Ruth Dyson said before what the department needs is the ability to be able to provide the information for the evidence-based decisions that Dr Smith and others would tell us that they believe in. But it is those scientists who have lost their jobs under this Government. 
The Government has systematically undermined the Department of Conservation and what we are now left with is a situation where only 250 of 2700 threatened species are actually under active management. 
Louise Upston 
: Remind me the relevancy to the bill? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Louise Upston asks how this is relevant. What is the point of a penalties regime that involves the conservation estate if the Government undermines the very protection of that estate and of the protection of the flora and fauna that this Government says it cares about? It puts the penalties regime up but the department that is charged with looking after it is consistently undermined by this Government. Now we have a department reliant on private donations and groups to fill in the gaps. It is great to see corporations getting behind things like kiwi recovery but in the end if the BNZ decides it has got other priorities there is nothing left inside this department. We support this bill to the select committee but we do so knowing that this Government has a record of undermining conservation. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I congratulate Jacqui Dean on bringing this bill to the House because it increases and implements a much more consistent approach to penalties for offences that are committed under the Conservation Act the National Parks Act the Reserves Act the Wildlife Act and the Wild Animal Control Act. One of the areas where it does this obviously is by increasing the penalties for offences under this conservation legislation for the smuggling of native wildlife. That is why the Green Party will be supporting the bill because the existing penalties have not increased for some time and they are out of step with the prices that are being paid internationally for wildlife that is smuggled out of Aotearoa and then sold internationally. There has been a range of court cases where it is quite clear that the existing penalties of up to a $100000 fine and 6 months in jail are not providing a deterrent. So we are pleased that the bill will increase the offending penalties where it has been done by individuals for commercial purposes or by a company—and that is a higher penalty than for offending by an individual. 
But I am also somewhat bemused by this bill because it is a member’s bill yet in September the Minister of Conservation said that the Government would be introducing the Wildlife (Smuggling Deterrence) Amendment Bill later this year and the object of that bill was to increase the maximum penalties for smuggling wildlife such as tuatara parrots and geckos— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Conspiracy—there’s something tricky going on here! 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: So yes Mr Bridges what is going on here? Because the Minister when she announced the intention to introduce that Government bill said that the penalties would be increased to up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a $300000 fine. So I would be interested in the comments from the member Jacqui Dean in reply about what happens when the Government does introduce the bill that has been promised. How does this bill improve on what the Government and Cabinet had already agreed and is it potentially duplicating that? Nevertheless we welcome the bill and we will be voting for it. 
As other speakers on the Opposition benches have highlighted this is a good bill but the Government is not investing adequately in conservation. We have seen a $54 million cut to the Department of Conservation’s budget and in the annual report of the department released in September it showed that there were 114 fewer front-line staff in 2011-12 than in 2009-10 and a total of 181 fewer permanent staff. That reduction in front-line staff gives the lie to the Government’s promises and claims that its slashing of the public sector budgets is not reducing people on the front line. 
Of course it is the people on the front line—the Department of Conservation staff who are out maintaining tracks and huts controlling wildings and willows doing predator control and providing advice to hunters trampers and international visitors—who are the front line against smuggling because it is often those staff and members of the public who are alert to suspicious activities. People go to visit the quite compliant sites and habitats where species like the jewelled gecko are found and then alert the wildlife enforcement group and warranted officers who can step in and take action. So I pay on behalf of the Green Party enormous tribute to those front-line Department of Conservation staff particularly in area offices who are being threatened by their substantial second round of restructuring which means that they are all going to have to apply for their jobs. 
It was a senior investigator in the wildlife enforcement group who described wildlife smugglers as “greedy people without any consideration for animals”. That is certainly true where these people are snatching species like the beautiful jewelled gecko from their habitats stuffing them in small plastic containers and taking them overseas. It is these lizard fauna particularly distinctive species like the jewelled gecko which have been targeted because of their bright green colouring and that very unusual diamond pattern. Of that species there are only about 5000 individuals left and they now confined to small areas of Otago and Canterbury particularly on the peninsulas. Habitat loss and predation have affected them and poaching is a huge impact and has caused several of the populations to crash. So the Green Party supports this bill increasing the penalties for those individuals who are taking these geckos out of their habitat. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I think we are all pretty familiar with the very unique range of flora and fauna that exists only in these islands of New Zealand and that makes us particularly vulnerable to those from overseas who would like to steal either our tuatara our geckos or the wide range of bird species that exist only in New Zealand. We have seen some high-profile prosecutions against people from various parts of the world who have tried to profit out of those pretty ugly crimes and it is appropriate that this Parliament is considering a bill to up both the fines and the criminal sanctions against those people involved in those crimes. I want to join with others and commend Jacqui Dean a member of Parliament for one of the most spectacular parts of the country with both South Canterbury and North Otago in that Waitaki area. I think her practical passion for conservation is what typifies this Government’s blue-green approach of wanting to be pro jobs and pro the economy and wanting to be a successful innovative country but at the same time wanting to ensure that we look after that which is precious. 
I want to respond to a couple of the challenges that have come from members opposite on this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill firstly from Green MP Eugenie Sage. She questioned the authenticity of this bill on the basis that the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson who is doing a great job had said that this was an area that needed to be addressed. Somehow the Green MPs are concerned that a Government MP has taken the initiative and picked up on the work and the comments that have been made by Kate Wilkinson. Well we are a team. Yes we have Ministers doing some pretty good work in this space but we also have strong and capable backbenchers who are complementing that work with this sort of bill. Equally so we have had the tired old rhetoric from a couple of Labour members saying “Hey this is a great bill but National’s not spending nearly enough on conservation.” Well I say that is a bit tired. Do they not know that this Government faces huge economic challenges and that there is no way that anybody could sensibly promote the ongoing increases in public spending? 
I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning and this morning we had the Secretary to the Treasury and Audit New Zealand noting that the huge increase in expenditure—a 50 percent increase in public expenditure—on core departments in the period from 2002 to 2008 was totally unsustainable. It is absolutely true that whether it is the Department of Conservation or right across the board this Government has had to pull in Government expenses. That is why it is so unfair and uncharitable of members opposite to give the Minister of Conservation a hard time for pulling her weight and doing her share to get this country’s books back in balance. 
The challenge I have got for the next Labour member is this: if you really are serious about increasing the conservation budget you need to say by how much and you need to say how you are going to fund it. These hollow words where I have had spokespeople right across the Labour benches—I do not care whether it is on broadcasting heritage conservation education health or foreign affairs—all say the Government is not spending enough. My simple challenge to members opposite whether it be in conservation or any other area is to show us the colour of your money say it with conviction and commit a future Labour Government to increase levels of spending rather than these weasel words of “Oh you’re not spending enough.” but then not being prepared to commit to how much you would spend. It is not good enough for Labour members not to say how they would fund their increases in expenditure. This bill from my colleague Jacqui Dean is part of this Government’s sensible conservation agenda. She should be commended and this bill should be supported. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Charles Chauvel. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Well it might be pronounced a bit differently but it is nice to have the call. To try to make a response to the challenge laid down by the last speaker the Hon Dr Nick Smith this is a bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill that has rightly attracted support across the House. It is a sensible bill and I commend Jacqui Dean for her initiative in putting it forward. 
The question of whether it is an appropriate member’s bill or whether it ought to be something that the Government advances as part of a technical review of penalties available in the conservation and related legislation in order to make sure that those penalties work as part of a coherent regime is another question. I have said before as have other members that the thing about members’ nights is that they are special. They are there for members who are not part of the executive to be able to advance matters that they feel passionately about that cannot otherwise be part of the parliamentary agenda. I am not belittling the bill by saying that it would be the sort of measure that we would support if it was part of a Statutes Amendment Bill rather than taking up the time of a members’ night. So I think that is the first point that I want to make. 
The second point that I want to make is a direct response to Dr Smith. I want to say this: Dr Smith it is not about splashing money around actually; it is about commitment. Everybody knows that you have a commitment to the environment. I have never heard anybody in this House question your deep belief that the New Zealand natural environment is one of our treasures. I have heard people speculate about the extent to which your colleagues share that belief and I think that is fair speculation. 
I have also heard people say—and I think this is right—that we should look at the record. I am very proud of this party’s record on environmental and conservation matters. The fourth Labour Government under Geoffrey Palmer marked our first Minister for the Environment who held a statutory warrant in that post which was revolutionary in this regard. Yes the Environment Act 1986 was Sir Geoffrey’s brainchild as was the Conservation Act 1987. All the groundwork that was done to ensure that the Resource Management Act could be enacted was done under his leadership. And New Zealand’s first steps to respond to the challenge of climate change were taken under that administration as well. That is an extremely proud record that every member on this side of the House wants to associate themselves with. 
Technical reforms of this nature that bring penalty regimes into line with one another are all well and good and of course we are going to support them. As I say I am a little concerned that the Government is taking up the time of the House on a members’ night. We could be spending time on non-Government members’ passionately held beliefs that they seek to advance via the member’s bill process but never mind. Every member has the privilege that Ms Dean is exercising tonight and she has chosen to exercise it in this way. 
But what has to be said what has to be repeated is what has been said by a number of Labour members and by Eugenie Sage and that is this: if you want to talk about record Dr Smith then this Government’s record on conservation and the environment is poor. It is extremely poor. If we look at the cuts in spending in the Department of Conservation right through to the decision to abandon the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period so that there are no binding commitments to reduce emissions and at all the public policy failures to bring about a change in our economy and in our society so that we really do start to act sustainably and renewably—that is the tragedy of this Government. That is the tragedy that we see in this minor measures bill which is praiseworthy and will be sent to a select committee and no doubt will pass through all its stages but it is tinkering. It is tinkering around the margins of the issues that matter. As I say if we want to talk about records and want to take up the challenge laid down by Dr Smith in the earlier contribution that is the sad reality of life under National. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the bill brought before the House by the member Jacqui Dean the Conservation (Natural Heritage) Protection Bill. Can I congratulate her on having two bills in the House on the one day. Should she pull another bill from the ballot today I think she should be shouting us all because it is exceptional to have two bills in the House in one day. We are all heading off to Christchurch in the morning—that is the Local Government and Environment Committee including Jacqui Dean as a member—and she might be shouting coffee in the morning at the Wigram airbase I hope. 
But back to the bill. We in New Zealand First certainly do also support this bill. It is high time that the penalties were increased for those who offend in terms of our flora and fauna our wildlife and nature and that the penalties are made to such a significant level that hopefully it might deter some of the illegal activities that have been going on. 
It is pleasing to see in section 44 in clause 5 that the penalties will increase for individuals “to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years and to a fine not exceeding $100000 and where the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $10000 for every day on which the offence had continued;”. Where the offence was committed by an individual for commercial purposes the penalty is “imprisonment for term not exceeding 3 years and to fine not exceeding $200000 and when the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $20000 for every day on which the offence has continued;”. Where the offence was committed by a corporation the penalty is “a fine not exceeding $200000 and where the offence is a continuing one to a further fine not exceeding $20000 for every day on which the offence has continued.” It is also pleasing to see in this bill that a sentence of community work can be imposed where someone has erred and where perhaps a financial fine is not appropriate. Again we in New Zealand First support that. 
We believe that the amendments in this bill to the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 are necessary to bring that in to line. However there is a downside to all this and although we are applauding the move to increase these penalties we concur with some of the other members in this House that at times we are very lax with our conservation. As the conservation spokesman for New Zealand First I also have concerns and our party has concerns at aspects of conservation that are being let down in this country. We are so so dependent on our natural environment for our tourism and for the image of New Zealand as “100% Pure New Zealand”. 
Our conservation estate is extremely important and it flows on into our agriculture it flows on into our horticulture and it flows on into other farming aspects in this country. So if we do not have a healthy natural environment our commercial agricultural and horticultural environment can be affected as well. So it is very important that the two go hand in hand. 
Likewise this week I was somewhat disappointed when it was marked that the Maui’s dolphin which are endangered are nearing extinction with only 55 Maui’s dolphin left mainly off the North Island coast. I thought that perhaps the Government would also pick up that cudgel as it has picked up this one and move more swiftly on the issue of the Maui’s dolphin. I was one of the four MPs who went along to receive a print from artist Sheyne Tuffery presented by Greenpeace. It was one of 55 prints to mark the 55 remaining Maui’s dolphin that are in existence. 
It was a great shame that only four MPs were there all from Labour the Greens and New Zealand First and that there was no representation at all from National. I thought that was a shame. Regardless of your politics and regardless of where you are these 55 Maui’s dolphin cannot speak up for themselves they cannot defend themselves and they cannot protect themselves and it would have been nice on this occasion for some Government members to at least show some sympathy for the whole thing. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I don’t think we were invited. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes you were invited. Every MP was invited—every MP was invited. So it would have been nice because I think it is important and I think we would all have a huge conscience to bear in years to come if we found that the Maui’s dolphin was indeed wiped out and that every one of us in this House every single 121 of us in this House had not done more to try to protect it. 
But anyway in closing this particular bill is a good move. We support the increase in penalties. New Zealand First always supports things of this nature where they are good policy practical policy and will have a result. Thank you. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It was interesting to have the reference from the previous speaker Andrew Williams about the National members not turning up. I certainly read about that in the 
 Dominion Post 
 this morning. It was saying that the National members had not responded to the invitation to be given something on the Maui’s dolphin. I went and dug around and I found the letter and there was no such invitation to me—that is for sure. There was a letter saying something was happening but there was certainly no invitation. So you sometimes wonder with some of the messages coming from Greenpeace whether they are quite accurate or not. 
But I just wanted to commend my colleague Jacqui Dean for this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill her second bill this evening—a very hard-working and implacably hard-working member of Parliament is Jacqui Dean. It is a timely bill because we all know New Zealand is unique in the world as the last significant uninhabited land mass in the world to be discovered by humans only a few hundred years ago. I have seen trees growing today that were around before humans arrived in these islands. I have seen trees on which moas have grazed which are still living now that were around before humans reached these islands. As a result of that we were a wonderful wonderful place in the world with all sorts of species that were unique and had evolved over a long period of time when New Zealand was splendidly isolated from the rest of the world and from humanity. All that changed a few hundred years ago when Maori arrived first and there was a wave of extinctions and that has continued in recent years—and that is only a split second of course in geological time. We are in a time of rapid change so it is important that we preserve what is precious. 
This bill which raises some of the maximum penalties in this area around precious species is very useful. I have never met a spotted or jewelled gecko. I do not understand the logic of people who would seek to put these down their underpants but from what I can understand this thing goes on. This bill if it helps nip it in the bud I think will be very useful not just in New Zealand but to the global effort against smuggling of geckos and those sorts of things. 
New Zealand makes a massive effort in conservation. It is often forgotten that about 33 percent of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. That is not a mistake—33 percent. One third of the land mass of New Zealand is in the conservation estate. We spend colossal sums on conservation—$445 million in Vote Conservation this year—and I am astounded to hear from the other side of the House tales of great woe and calamity that somehow not enough resources have been put into this area. I mean let us just cast our minds back only 10 years ago when it was only $226 million that was being spent on conservation. So we have doubled the amount spent in the last 10 years and that of course is not enough. 
It is quite right things have had to be pulled back a little bit in the last few years but if you take the longer stretch there is a very substantial and increased investment in conservation. It all just goes to show when you hear the likes of Mr Chauvel talking about the fact that we need to just keep pouring the money in how this country got itself into such a pretty pass as we had in 2008 when this Government inherited a nation pregnant with years of financial deficits coming down the line because the previous Government just did not have control over its spending. I get frustrated when hearing this great moral high ground taken from the other side of the House as if those members care more about the environment than we do. 
What we are saying here is that every Government has to make that balance between giving New Zealanders the benefit of a well-run economy that can produce the living standards that all families want and aspire to and also the very substantial contribution that continues to be made in conservation. I am very proud of this Government’s record and I commend Jacqui Bill for this conservation bill which will— 
Hon Members 
: Jacqui Bill? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Jacqui Dean I believe. I commend Jacqui Dean for her great effort with this bill. Thank you. 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in the name of Jacqui Dean. I think it is a fantastic bill to see this increase in penalties around the stealing and the smuggling of native wildlife and plants. It has got particular meaning for me because unlike Mr Goldsmith who spoke previously I am familiar with the jewelled gecko. I remember watching them—but not in my underpants—and seeing them in their natural habitat at that point in the Nelson Lakes. We are not sure that they even exist in any numbers in the Nelson Lakes now because the numbers have gone back so much. It is absolutely critical that we find measures to conserve them. 
I had a strong interest in lizards actually when I was a kid and they would still probably be my favourite animal. I remember going out to the Wairau Bar out from Blenheim and the coastline and other areas looking for lizards and looking for katipo spiders and the like. I am so aware of the drop in their numbers when I go to show in turn my children or my partner what is actually out there. Out there now you could not find a katipo spider. You may still find some lizards but they are not as prolific as they once were. It is absolutely critical that we use measures such as this bill and the services of the Department of Conservation to make sure that we preserve our natural heritage. 
I also lived in the outer Marlborough Sounds and looked out at Stephens Island which has probably the greatest population of tuatara in the world. The lighthouse would wink at our place 300 metres up the side of Aorere Mount Stokes where we also had kakariki—another target of those smugglers up there—a fantastic beautiful little parrot which not enough New Zealanders get to see. 
What is also very concerning—and other members of the House have mentioned it tonight—is the fact that earlier we had Nick Smith using the economic woes as an excuse in my words to whack the Department of Conservation around the ear. The real economic value of not losing species is not being valued here. It is not being valued by the Government as it depletes the department’s resources more and more year after year. 
What does it look like when we lose Maui’s dolphins? What does it look like when we have less and less of our natural fauna? The people internationally who are interested in the different conventions are measuring them and are seeing more and more species coming into different threatened and vulnerable categories. That is not good for our brand. It is not good for our selling of anything that comes out of New Zealand. It is not good for our tourism. The real value in the Department of Conservation is much higher than this Government seems to give it. We need a fresh and new green vision that actually values our natural heritage for not only its intrinsic values but also its economic value. 
I remember some of my previous activities at meetings of NGOs. Every quarter or thereabouts we would have a meeting at the Department of Conservation in Manners Street. Different NGOs and interest groups would meet with the department. I can remember the staff there presenting the latest change in management approach—this new commercial management approach. Man they were stoic. They were fantastic people but they were standing there presenting that as though it was the best thing since sliced bread and some of them were going to lose their jobs. Department of Conservation staff are dedicated people wanting to make a difference and to manage our natural heritage. We need to really support them. 
With the jobs gone and the drop in core work and funding the Government is expecting the community to pick up the slack. The community was already working pretty much to capacity as it was so it means only that we are going to have further losses to our natural heritage. Area offices are being totally done over effectively and staff are being forced into decisions around their close friends and colleagues—basically having to choose which ones of their friends are going. I am looking forward to when a Government actually values the Department of Conservation in a better way and supports things like this bill. This bill is a good move but the Government also needs to support the department to do its job. Thank you very much. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 You know it is easy enough I guess to stand in this House and lament budget cuts to the Department of Conservation and completely ignore the realities of the fiscal restraints that this Government is operating under. And it is easy to sit up in Opposition and say that we should be spending more money. Well that is what they are doing in Greece. That is what they are doing in the European Union. This Government takes our responsibilities a little more seriously than that. I also want to pick up on the comment of the previous speaker Steffan Browning that the real economic value of not losing species is not realised by this Government. Well actually it is because I am bringing this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill to the House and this bill well and truly values our special creatures in New Zealand. It recognises absolutely the economic value that is brought to New Zealand as well as all the other intrinsic values by these special creatures. And it is this party it is this Minister of Conservation and it is me with this member’s bill who are putting effect to those words. The words from across the House are all very well they are all very fine but it is this party and I am the member of that party who is putting up this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill for the consideration of Parliament and the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
You know bringing consistency into the legislation around our natural heritage if nothing else will send the clearest message to those who seek to profit from our most precious creatures. Interestingly several members have said that they would not go near a jewelled gecko if they fell over one and some people love them to death. They are little creatures and if they sit still enough they sit on your hand. They really are the most beautiful little things. They are emerald green with yellow and white diamond markings—and each marking is unique so that when they are photographed they can be traced if they have been smuggled. On the Otago Peninsula some populations of those jewelled gecko have been smuggled recovered at the border and returned to that habitat but sadly that same smuggler has returned the next season and smuggled them again. How do we know that? Because we can identify their markings when they turn up in Europe at the large trade fairs for animals. Quite a bit is known about the smuggling of jewelled geckos which are pretty remarkable creatures. 
So the message through this bill—the clearest message for those who profit from our most precious creatures—is that we are on to you. And the message to the Department of Conservation and to those personnel in the Customs Service and the Ministry for Primary Industries who hold the line against this smuggling is that we back you. We value the work of the Wildlife Enforcement Group. We will give you the teeth when you through your investigation through your— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh I do beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. 
We will give them the teeth when they through their investigation their observation their connections their intuition and their sheer hard graft apprehend the lowlifes who seek to smuggle our precious creatures and ship them off to offshore markets. 
To those Swiss German and Russian smugglers who come to New Zealand posing as tourists well just do not bother. We not only have the personnel watching you but also when our Department of Conservation Customs Service and Ministry for Primary Industries personnel catch you it just will not be worth it. It would not be days in jail—no under this bill should it be enacted by this Parliament it will be up to 3 years. The penalties will be increased for a number of other offences where wildlife has been endangered or protected where natural habitats have been damaged. So the penalty for example for releasing a noxious animal in a national park will increase as will milling a stand of trees or converting a portion of national park into pasture. So there are a number of aspects to this bill. 
I want to thank members for the debate tonight. I think it has been extremely interesting. I look forward to the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee will go through. I want to thank members for their support of this bill. I would be surprised given that we are all New Zealanders if it were otherwise. Finally I am very proud to be a member of National’s blue-green team and proud to bring this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa e te Whare. I move  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider this bill in time. Put simply this bill makes casinos subject to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. That Act established a civil forfeiture regime where a person is in receipt of any profits derived from any crime. That person need not be responsible for a party to or convicted of that crime or any other crime to be subject to the forfeiture regime. That is it applies regardless of the person’s guilt. Blame is not an issue under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act only whether or not a person has received goods that were acquired through significant criminal activity. This applies to all legal persons all ordinary persons—humans—in this country all ordinary New Zealanders but casinos are not required under any legislation to return either to the State or to the victim of a crime any profits that they make from the gambling of stolen funds. Casinos are not subject to this law as ordinary New Zealanders are. 
Sometimes those kinds of crimes in casinos are very high-profile. They involve millions and millions of dollars. Often it is money-laundering. Most often though the gambled money has been stolen from small businesses from medium-sized New Zealand businesses from community organisations from friends and from family. These businesses organisations and individuals suffer serious financial impacts often bankruptcy while the casinos get to keep the profits from the gambling of that stolen money. My bill will see an end to the keeping of that stolen money. 
We know that gambling causes harm. Since the horse bolted and casinos were allowed to be established in the 1990s Parliament has been grappling with all the different ways to stop them from causing more harm. In 2003 MPs passed the Gambling Act. The view then was that gambling was a profoundly bad thing especially for the most vulnerable of people and that casinos were seen as members of an industry that needed stringent laws to control regulate and contain them and to stop them from causing more harm to people. The Gambling Act put a lid on the industry preventing more casinos from opening and banning any mechanism that allowed existing casinos to offer more opportunities to gamble. However we know from recent wheeling and dealing that the intentions of this Act have been deliberately subverted. 
My bill was developed in response to the dirty deal that the Prime Minister John Key and Minister Steven Joyce are doing to secure the “Skycity - John Key Casino Convention Centre” in Auckland. Skycity has done everything it can— 
Charles Chauvel 
: The John Key memorial. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The “John Key Memorial Convention Centre”. That is right. Skycity has done everything it can to get around the Gambling Act in order to expand its operations. It has taken case after case to the courts and relentlessly pursued the Gambling Commission in an effort to squeeze more opportunities to evade the Act. When legal avenues did not work Skycity bosses wined and dined MPs and their staff lobbied Government relentlessly and made donations to politicians and to political parties and eventually it appears that has paid off. John Key knew that the Ministry of Economic Development was investigating the feasibility of a convention centre in Auckland so he offered Skycity a deal. He would allow it up to a third more pokie machines and other harmful gambling concessions if it built the convention centre in Auckland. This would involve changing the Gambling Act but of course he is the Prime Minister and in the infamous words of a previous National Party Prime Minister he would have said to himself I am sure that “there is a little room downstairs in which we fix problems like that.” 
John Key has argued that he made the deal with Skycity because it is a good one and because it will not cost the New Zealand public to build the convention centre. But of course he is wrong. Gambling-related harm costs the New Zealand public millions of dollars a year in bankruptcies arrests incarcerations unemployment divorce poor physical and mental health loss of educational opportunities and suicide. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: And no benefit. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: No benefit. Increases in gambling equal increases in costs and my bill will help to create accountability for and reduce some of those costs. John Key also argued that the convention centre would create a heap of jobs but he was wrong about that too. He so massively inflated the job numbers that the author of the feasibility report came out in the media to correct him. He inflated the numbers by almost double—John Key inflated the job numbers by almost double misleading the public and in my view misleading this Parliament. Making up job numbers to sell the casino convention centre deal to the public is extremely desperate. So is standing up in Parliament waving a study that actually shows pokie machines are more likely to cause problem gambling than the community-based ones but telling MPs that it is the reverse—John Key did that as well. This is blatant hypocrisy. It has followed hard on the heels of Skycity chief executive officer Nigel Morrison trying to argue that Lotto was much worse than casinos again in an attempt to distort the figures in order to sell this dirty deal to New Zealanders. The deal was so questionable that the Auditor-General agreed to investigate it. That investigation is ongoing investigating the process for seeking and assessing proposals on the deal the adequacy of the assessment of the likely costs and benefits and any other matters that the Auditor-General thinks is necessary. 
What has been missing in the discussions around this deal is that the change in law subverts the fundamental intent of the Gambling Act. My bill will help bring some integrity back to this legislation. This bill amends the definition in the principal Act of the term “ ‘unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity’ to specifically refer to casinos that knowingly having regard to best international practice in detecting problem gambling and criminal activity derive a benefit from significant criminal activity.” 
We know that casinos attract significant criminal activity. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 describe casinos as specific typologies of the risk of crime. More provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 come into force in 2013 and those provisions place enhanced obligations on casinos to monitor and report suspicious activity but they do not require casinos to return to those from whom the money was stolen the profits they make from illegal activity and the gambling of stolen funds. There is no justification as to why ordinary New Zealanders should be required to forfeit the profits from criminal activity when casinos which are internationally recognised as drivers of crime and the receivers of stolen property are not also subject to the law. It is just about making them subject to the same law that everybody else is and finding a way to help restore just a tiny bit of the loss that New Zealanders suffer: New Zealand businesses community organisations charities—and we know that much of the money that is stolen from charities is gambled in casinos—families and friends. 
This bill is not about just the Skycity dirty deal. This is about making sure that casinos have a stronger level of regulation and pay back those families those New Zealanders who pay the cost of the operations. It is a fair bill. It places a reasonable obligation on casinos and it helps to reduce the harm that is caused by gambling and gambling addition. I commend this bill to the House. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 What an outrageous speech! For the member Metiria Turei to bring out some of those claims and comments is absolutely outrageous. We understand in this Parliament that nobody supports harm that comes from gambling. We understand these things but I wonder where that member’s research comes from—research that says that casinos per se are major drivers of crime. That is what I say is outrageous. Some of those quotes and comments were outlandish. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: What planet do you live on? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I live on a planet of reality sir and we on this side of the House are not supporting this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill for some very good reasons. 
We on this side of the House are committed to building a safer New Zealand. I think that New Zealanders out there in our country know that. We have seen crime and criminal activity reduce in this country because of the legislation we have put through this House. We have seen public confidence in our law-keeping forces rise and increase when in past years under past administrations that confidence decreased. I think New Zealanders know that the National-led Government is working hard to build a safer New Zealand. 
In fact this bill that is being proposed is a bill that is a late starter in a race that has already been run and is over. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering and already has enforcement mechanisms and that legislation comes into force in July 2013—it comes into force in July 2013. We also know that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 already contains a civil forfeiture regime and a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court if it is satisfied that a person has knowingly derived benefit from significant criminal activity. 
So much of this member’s bill is nefarious—for example the words “should have known” and other wordings in the bill such as “derived or likely to be derived”. How is one to define “should have known” and how is it to be defined that it is “likely to be derived”? So what we have here is I think very poor drafting in a bill. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It’s very good drafting. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: There is no doubt some good intent but its application and its working-out is fraught with great difficulty. 
There are a number of good reasons why we do not support this bill. We understand that money-laundering involves transforming money from crime and that it is called dirty money. If we are talking about anything that is dirty that is where it comes from—it is money from crime. It has the appearance of coming from a legitimate source and it makes its criminal origin difficult to trace. It is therefore deemed as clean money—so that is where the laundering component or understanding comes from. We understand that effective money-laundering enables criminals to remove themselves from their criminal activities and makes it harder to prosecute them and confiscate their proceeds. We understand these difficulties. This is what Governments over the years have always grappled with and we believe that we have instituted a law which is going to take effect shortly that is going to work very very strongly to stop that. 
This bill would amend the principal Act to apply the profit forfeiture regime to casinos that benefit from significant criminal activity and either knew that or should have known that. How does one determine “should have known”? How do you determine that they should have known that the benefit is derived or likely to be derived from criminal activity? 
Key issues the bill tries to address are returning proceeds to people from whom they were acquired or stolen. I understand that there is good intent in wanting to see that happen but I would say that a majority of people who have an item stolen whether it be in cash or in property would have that item insured and most people would receive some benefit from an insurance policy. Yet they are going to receive under this bill the cash return or the value return if somehow the proceeds of those funds are deemed to be received by a casino. I am not quite sure how that would happen in fact. There are not many criminals out there who carry a receipt book and actually write down exactly where and when and how they have been able to arrive at their proceeds-of-crime amount whether it is $1000 $10000 or $20000 or whatever. 
So somebody might take a stash of cash a handful of money into a casino and gamble it. And perhaps by international best practice by observation and technology and technique somebody or a system could discern that this person has peculiar activities that could profile them as a person who ought not to have such a large amount of money or as someone who has come there time and again with a large amount of money and could start to identify that person as a person who is suspect. How would you then determine that that person may have received that money through an act of crime? We are starting to delve into the area of guessing double-guessing and not being sure about these things and I think that our laws need to be better constructed and stronger in regard to these issues. In terms of the assets recovered under the Act’s civil forfeiture regime they are not returned to those persons from whom they have been stolen or acquired; they are returned to the Crown. That is simple. That is not complicated and there are other mechanisms by which a person who has suffered loss can recover that loss. 
Also under the bill there are lowered thresholds of liability for casinos. There is no reason why a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the Act currently. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos by the statement “who should have known” compared with other persons who knowingly derived a benefit. I think that this is an area that I feel very uncomfortable about and I think that many people in this House would feel uncomfortable about it as well. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. 
So this bill does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging best practice or returning proceeds of crime to those from whom the proceeds were acquired or stolen. I believe that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 places enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering and contains enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill intends. As I said earlier this bill is a late starter in a race that has already run and is over. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to begin by commending the member who has sponsored this legislation Metiria Turei. I think it is timely that the Parliament should look at the issues that are raised by the bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. As we heard from her careful introductory speech the bill would amend section 7 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 which defines whether or not an entity has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. What her amendment would do is add one subclause to that definition. It would clarify that the principal Act does apply to a casino and that a casino is for the purpose of the definition in the legislation “taken to have knowingly derived a benefit from significant criminal activity if it knew or should have known having regard to best international practice in the detection of problem gambling and criminal activity that the benefit is derived or likely to be derived from the proceeds of significant criminal activity.” The previous speaker Jonathan Young said: “Well what is this concept of ‘should have known’? How can a casino be put in a position that it ought to have known that there was something dodgy about the money that it was receiving?” Well the reality is that this concept of “ought to have known” is one that is very well known to the law and the criminal law in particular. 
Where an entity is put into a position of great privilege as casinos have been in our society by legislation then a corollary of that great privilege is that we as a Parliament should watch them closely and if we are concerned that they might be causing social harm or if we are concerned that they might be assisting the laundering of money in any way then we ought to take that issue very very seriously. That is really the nub of the reason why my Labour colleagues and I will be supporting this legislation to go to the Commerce Committee and why I hope that National members and others will do so. If we do not frankly then the suspicion will arise rightly or wrongly that the casino and the gambling industries are exerting undue influence over us and that is not— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Oh! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well there goes the Minister of Police who starved the police of enforcement resources during her tenure yet we had her colleague Mr Young tell us just before that all was well that the police had enough resource to do their job and that enforcement in respect of casinos and otherwise was all fine. If all that was true then there would be no harm in sending this bill to a select committee to hear advice to hear submissions from the public and to consider whether or not it was a merited measure or whether the previous speaker is right and there are existing provisions in the law that deal with this. 
That is what the purpose of members’ day should be. Members do not have the access that the executive has to expert advice to public servants and to all the panoply of expertise that Ministers can draw on. We have to rely on our own resources in order to put forward measures that we think are sensible. There is no doubt that there is great concern in the community about the way in which casino gambling is operating and in particular the interface with organised crime and the potential to launder money through organisations such as casinos. In light of that overwhelming public concern it behoves us not to act simply as the lapdogs of the industry but to ask ourselves what is the responsible thing to do in this situation. It is absolutely clear to me and to my colleagues as responsible independent legislators who have a concern about ensuring both for the sake of the public and for the industry for that matter that everything is seen to be conducted with probity and above board that Metiria Turei’s bill should go to a select committee be considered by members of Parliament in a deliberative fashion and that they should hear advice from experts and hear submissions from the public. If the National Party and its allies deny that opportunity to this Parliament then simply the result will be that members’ day is brought further into disrepute. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Malo le soifua. I rise to take a call on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. May I start off by saying that we on this side of the House do not support this bill. The main reason we do not support this bill is that it is again a sad reminder that the Opposition would rather create new problems by advancing needless legislation than fix a problem with our existing legislation. The purpose of the bill as has already been outlined by the mover of the bill Metiria Turei is to encourage casinos to implement best practice in systems to detect and prohibit problem gamblers and money-launderers. 
But what are the problems with the bill? I am going to support my colleague Mr Young and say that it does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging this. There is no reason why currently a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the current legislation. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos that should have known compared with other persons who knowingly commit these acts. That is imposing the lower test of constructive knowledge as my learned colleague across the Chamber said as opposed to that more rigorous test of actual knowledge. I do not like my colleague agree with that. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. Certainly Miss Turei has not presented any evidence tonight. 
So you might want to ask what is in place currently to address this issue—you might want to. Currently as my colleague stated the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts in place obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering. It also has enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill is trying to do. The Act will come into force in 2013 as my colleague said and under the Act reporting entities including casinos must put in place a programme that consists of risk-based systems processes and controls to detect and deter money-laundering. For example casinos must assess their money-laundering risks and implement anti - money-laundering programmes that are proportionate to that risk assessment. Given the nature the scale and the complexities associated with casinos obviously the expectations on them will be large. They also must undertake more robust customer due diligence measures monitor large or unusual transactions and keep a record of transactions that are larger than $6000. They must also and the Minister here will be happy with this report suspicious transactions to the police. 
That Act contains enforcement mechanisms that are more targeted and more effective than the proposed amendment. These include of course the provision that an entity that fails to comply with the Act’s requirements commits a civil liability act and a supervisor may issue a formal warning or accept an enforceable undertaking. A court may enforce that undertaking issue an injunction or order an entity to pay a pecuniary penalty to the Crown of up to $2 million on the civil standard of proof. 
Mr Chauvel might ask why not send the bill to a select committee. I say to Mr Chauvel that if you read the legislation read the Act against this bill you will realise that this bill is superfluous. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: No it’s not. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is. 
The Act also has checks in place to ensure that it is working as it should do. Implementation of the regime will provide evidence of whether casinos are taking reasonable steps to detect money-laundering and clarify whether any amendments are required. Under casino licensing conditions of course we know that they specify that the Gambling Commission is required to review each casino’s Host Responsibility programmes every 2 years. They can also look at whether a casino’s policy is identifying problem gamblers. This may include describing a range of indicators for identifying potential problem gamblers such as intensity and frequency of play and frequency of ATM visits. 
This is a poorly constructed bill that is simply superfluous. We on this side of the House oppose it. We believe in quality legislation for the people families and communities of our country. I oppose this bill. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 I thought that Jonathan Young’s speech was utterly disgraceful. It was the epitome of National’s head in the sand approach to money-laundering in respect of casinos and it shows National’s pro-casinos approach—you can bet on that. This bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill has a very long title but a very simple purpose: to ensure that the proceeds of crime spent in and laundered through casinos are returned to those from whom the proceeds were originally obtained. That is what the principal Act the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act was intended to do but does not clearly require. The purpose of the principal Act in section 3(1) is: “The primary purpose of this Act is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property—(a) that has been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity; or (b) that represents the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income.” 
So New Zealand First supports the bill to make the obligation on casinos to return the money obtained in these ways absolutely certain. It does this by amending section 7 which says: “In this Act unless the context otherwise requires a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly directly or indirectly derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).” The relevant part of the section for the purposes of this debate is the word “knowingly”. This means that a prosecutor would need to prove specific knowledge that a benefit has been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity and that is the problem with the current legislation which the members opposite do not seem to understand. It would be difficult to do in the case of casinos which can too easily claim no knowledge when a gambler uses stolen money in the casino or when the gambler sets out on a mission to launder money obtained illegally by gambling in the casino. 
Casinos attract criminals indulging in such activities like flies around a carcass. It is just one more way that casinos damage New Zealand communities in addition to the issues surrounding addictive gambling and encouraging excessive gambling. They also take money away from more wholesome and more beneficial activities. Casinos because of the scope for harm which they generally generate and inherently generate have a special duty of care towards those whom they potentially harm and towards the whole community. So it is appropriate that section 7 be amended so that for the purposes of section 7(1) as it would become a casino would be imputed with knowledge if it should have known that the money being used by a gambler came from significant criminal activity. For this purpose the new section 7(2) which would be inserted by clause 5 of this bill refers to international best practice in the detection of such activities and that is as it should be. The onus must be on the casino to adopt best practice. Plenty of precedents exist for this overseas. Best practice would require such things as surveillance recognition of gamblers’ behaviour recognition of known gamblers and their associates and so on. A very long list of things can be included in best practice for these purposes. 
So I think this bill is extremely well drafted and it will be extremely effective and I cannot understand why the Government would not enthusiastically support it—unless it is soft on crime and maybe that is the answer. Perhaps we have got a National Government that is soft on crime. I think that is the answer and I do not see any denials from those opposite. So here we have a National Government refusing to adopt this bill because it is soft on crime and because it supports casinos and all of the harm that they do. I am disgusted by the attitude of the Government on this bill. It should be enthusiastically embracing it as New Zealand First does. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal. Thank you for this opportunity for me to speak on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill which we are opposing. The bill introduced by the Green member Metiria Turei seeks to encourage casinos towards implementing what the Green Party considers best practice and systems to detect and prevent problem gamblers and money-laundering. The basis of the bill is that a casino as a business poses a risk in attracting and benefiting from this significant criminal activity and that casinos do not have a mechanism under which they can track and pay back money received under criminal proceeds. The Opposition believes that by passing this legislation it can ensure that the proceeds received will eventually be returned to the people from whom they have been stolen or acquired. Let me clarify this grey area. The assets once recovered are not returned back to the people; rather these are returned to the Crown. Secondly the current legislation ensures that any casino that seeks to knowingly profit from criminal activity in any shape or form can be subject to profit forfeiture. Moreover the proposed legislation should be based on evidence rather than individual thinking. Currently there is no clear evidence that casinos at present are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. By proposing this the member wants to suggest lowering the threshold of liability on casinos to take reasonable measures and precautions to prevent criminal intent by persons who knowingly commit the crime. 
The bill does not achieve anything. It aims high by encouraging best practice. However it provides little or no framework. Rather the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 passed by the National Government already contains a civil penalisation. Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court in cases where the judge is satisfied by the evidence that a person has knowingly derived benefit from this significant criminal activity. Furthermore New Zealand currently requires casinos to protect and minimise any harm to the community due to the issue of gambling. Towards that end all the six casinos in New Zealand must have an approved Host Responsibility programme. Both the casino and the Host Responsibility programme are approved by the Gambling Commission which is an independent statutory body. As part of the Host Responsibility programme casinos in New Zealand have a policy on identifying problem gamblers which include indicators such as intensity and frequency of play and frequent use of ATM machines on the premises. 
 Casinos under the current legislation are also obliged to detect money-laundering and criminal activity. The Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996 obligates casinos to keep transaction records and verify the identity of the people conducting occasional transactions over $10000. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 will come into effect in July 2013. This Act further strengthens the robust regime New Zealand has in place to monitor detect and report suspicious activity. 
In the consideration that New Zealand has comprehensive legislation in place to address the issues being discussed in this bill I do not think we require another piece of legislation. Therefore I do not support this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to quote the member of Parliament who spoke earlier in this debate who started his speech in the way that I want to start mine and say that I am outraged at the speech that the member has just delivered. It was gobsmacking. Having sat on a select committee with that member for some months now I frankly have come to expect better of him. I thought that that member was able to think for himself was able to stand up for principles and was able to allow a robust debate on important issues but he has let me down. He has let a lot of people down actually as have his colleagues Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Jonathan Young who have both spoken earlier. 
The member from New Zealand First who spoke during this debate Denis O’Rourke said that he suspected the reason that the National Party was opposing this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—clearly National does not want it go to the Commerce Committee; they want to close down the debate fast—was that it was soft on crime. That may be a reason. That is certainly a possibility. I think Mr O’Rourke with respect that you might need to just tune that a little more. I think National members are soft on some crime. They are soft on crime that goes on in casinos. They want to turn a blind eye to that. They want to allow people who have committed crimes to use the profit of that crime in the casino. They want the casino to benefit from the crime and it wants to smile and wave and walk away. 
Why would they want to do that? Let me give that a bit of thought. It may be because the Prime Minister and Steven Joyce are doing a shonky deal with the Auckland casino so that they can get around the current law dramatically increase the number of pokie machines that it runs in the Auckland casino and Auckland will have a convention centre. Good on Auckland for getting a convention centre. Actually we would like one in Christchurch too because ours is pretty wrecked—it is probably gone actually by now—but we do not want to sell our community’s health in order to get our convention centre. We would rather pay for it ourselves and protect our community from more harm rather than encourage it in the way that John Key has done. 
So I think that Denis O’Rourke is correct. I think that the National Party is soft on crime and particularly it is soft on crime that goes on in casinos—otherwise it would be supporting this legislation at least to go to a select committee. What is the National Party scared of? What does it have to hide? That is the only reason that the National Party members would all be putting up their hands and saying no to this legislation: that there was something that might come out at the select committee that might expose their shonky deal with the Auckland Skycity Casino which is behind the scenes getting around New Zealand law. That is exactly what the situation is— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening very carefully to the member’s contributions and comparing it with the Speakers’ rulings as set out in Speaker’s ruling 50/3. I fear that the last comment that the member has made which I will not repeat has certainly strayed into territory that is improper for a member of this House to make. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually thinking of Speaker’s ruling 51/5 myself. I would just caution the member to be careful in the way in which she couches the debate. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The reason why I think the National Party members do not want this bill to go to a select committee is that during submissions looking at whether criminals should be able to spend the proceeds of their crime at a casino and whether the casino knowing that should benefit from it the issue of the deal may come up. I think that during those submissions the issue may be brought up of the deal that John Key and Steven Joyce are doing with the Skycity Casino in Auckland so that that organisation can get around the law and dramatically increase the number of pokie machines it runs which we know will do great harm in our community and for which in return it has to have to provide a convention city which they will make money from. That is why the National Party is afraid and does not want this bill to go to a select committee. 
So Labour is supporting this. We want the debate. There might be as there often is in a member’s bill some matters to clean out. We do not have the resources of Government departments and agencies to write bills for us. Members rely on talented members within their own caucus. We are fortunate to have Charles Chauvel. I am not sure who the Green Party has in its caucus—any number of people might have written it—but Metiria Turei is responsible for this bill and I want to give her credit for bringing it to the House. It is an important area. It is one that this Parliament should not be afraid to debate. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. It is a timely attempt to rein in the rapacious activities of casinos that profit from the proceeds of crime. Casinos are the beneficiaries of theft fraud and money-laundering. They are not necessarily good corporate citizens and Mr Joyce’s comments in the House during question time that the Greens were trying to stop Skycity in Auckland from building a convention centre were disingenuous to say the least. He implies that we the people of Auckland should be grateful for the casino’s largesse that Skycity Casino is a good and worthy business and completely forgets that the cost that comes with this national convention centre deal is more crime more problem gambling and more social harm and that this is what will come from the extra 300 to 500 pokie machines that the casino is demanding in exchange. 
This bill is an attempt to reduce the crime level associated with casinos by ensuring that they can no longer help the criminals. Currently there are no disincentives for a casino to do that. There are only incentives. For example in 2006 in a period of 6 months one member of a criminal drug ring gambled over $11 million—classic money-laundering—and from that exercise the casino kept $1.5 million in profit. In 2010 Herminia Lanuza was jailed for 4 years for theft. She withdrew $2.7 million from banks and ATMs around the Auckland Casino and lost the lot and it is interesting that it is the bank that is being sued for passing her fraudulent cheques. Christopher Sue was jailed for 4 years in 2008. He had a turnover of $50 million at the casino over 6 years. How do you think the casino knew that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DENISE ROCHE 
: Sorry sir. How does one know that? The casino knew that because it tracked the money. Richard Watson stole $5.5 million from his employer over 10 years. These are just a few examples. 
In 2008 the BDO Kendalls  
Not-for-profit Fraud Survey  
found that 53 percent of all the money stolen from charities was stolen to fund gambling activity. This survey by the way was of only those people who had been caught. It calculated that the average amount stolen from community organisations was $180000 per person. That is a huge amount for a charity to lose and they cannot afford to lose it especially as they are quite correctly held to account for the public funds and donations that they receive and spend. Charities lose money to gambling. Small and medium sized businesses lose money to fuel gambling activity. These employers are good employers. They provide employment and they pay tax. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)