Volume 650 Week 85 - Wednesday 10 September 2008 
Volume 650 Week 85 - Wednesday 10 September 2008 
[Volume:650;Page:18681] 
Wednesday 10 September 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Observations 
Parliamentary Library—Appointment of First Librarian 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members it is my pleasure to inform the House that 20 September 2008 marks the 150th anniversary of the appointment of the Parliamentary Library’s first librarian Captain F E Campbell. I am sure that members would wish to join with me in congratulating the library on this significant anniversary and in acknowledging its historic and current role in supporting representative and parliamentary democracy. The occasion will be marked by the publication of a book  
Parliament’s Library—150 years 
 by Dr John Martin which will be launched at a function in the Grand Hall this evening. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Care—Access 
1. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What recent reports if any has he received on the cost of accessing health care? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I have seen a recent report noting that under the Labour and Progressive Government the cost of visiting one’s local general practitioner has plummeted. The average cost of visiting the doctor is now just $26. Kiwi families are saving about $500 a year as a result of this Government’s approach to funding primary health care. By contrast the National Party said it would “knock it on the head” and if general practitioner fees go up Mr John Key thinks the market will “fix the problem” and that people will “go down the road”. It is no wonder Kiwis do not trust him or them. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister received any further reports on the funding of primary health care? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact just by coincidence I have. This is a report that says the National Party will continue funding primary health care “in the short term”. That sounds like the National Party’s pledge to sell Kiwibank “eventually”. The report is from the National Party’s health policy which I just happen to have a copy of here. When the National Party says in public that it will keep funding health care in the short term it is once again saying something else behind closed doors. National’s Jonathan Coleman just recently told a public meeting in Auckland that he thought “GP fees aren’t high enough”. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the member makes an assertion like that he should back it up with proof because that is completely untrue and a lie. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. There is a general debate coming up. I remind Ministers that their answers should be short as should the questions. Are there any further supplementary questions? 
Lesley Soper 
: Has he received any reports on alternative approaches to funding health care? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes as a matter of fact I have. It is in the National Party policy. I have received a report suggesting that money should be taken out of the public health sector and put into subsidising the profits of corporate health insurers. The report proposes tax rebates for those who can afford private health insurance effectively locking in a two-tier health system where those who can afford private health insurance are rewarded and everyone else gets left behind. Once again that proposal came from the National Party’s health policy yet to be released—except to us of course—which we have. It is clear that National is more interested in creating profit-making opportunities for private health insurers than it is in providing public health-care services for the rest of New Zealand. 
Lesley Soper 
: Can he confirm that tax rebates for those with private health insurance would do little to increase the quality of health care provided to the vast majority of New Zealanders and would in fact simply provide financial reward to those who already have access to the private health sector? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I can confirm is that for someone around age 70 who is on a retirement income it costs $1500 for health insurance and the National Party is going to provide a subsidy for that for those who can afford $1500 a year and the rest of New Zealanders who cannot will have to fall around trying to get what is left of the public health sector after those people have finished with it. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that instead of funding prescription medicines through an independent agency such as Pharmac political leaders should have a greater role in determining which drugs are available and which drug companies win contracts? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I would not go as far as to call them political leaders; I would call them politicians. But I have a report suggesting that the independence of Pharmac would be overruled by a future National Government. It seems National MPs think they know better than the medical experts who currently make decisions on which drugs to fund. The risks are pretty obvious to me: would you like the front bench on the other side deciding who gets drugs and who does not or would you like the present system that this Government operates. 
I seek leave to lay on the Table a report of Mr Jonathan Coleman’s remarks about supporting his leader and his attitude towards private health-care. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in July regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “I’ve made it clear all the way through this round of allegations that I accept an honourable member’s word as his bond unless I have reason to doubt it.” and does she consider in the light of Owen Glenn’s statement to the Privileges Committee yesterday that she now has a reason to doubt the word of Mr Peters? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by the statement and I am aware of disturbing evidence given to the Privileges Committee last night to which there is a right of reply. 
John Key 
: Is it not clear that there is now enough evidence that Mr Peters has misled the public that regardless of the Privileges Committee’s decision on the separate and narrow issue of whether or not Mr Peters should have declared a pecuniary interest the Prime Minister should act to sack Mr Peters immediately? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Peters may be the hardest person in the country to insist on due process for but I do think that any reasonable person would agree that he has a right to reply tonight. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Mr Glenn yesterday in regard to a meeting they had in February 2008 in which he said “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party president Mr Williams before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005. It was my understanding Mr Williams would have to clear this with his colleagues.”; and does she accept Mr Glenn’s account of this conversation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Prime Minister share New Zealand First’s concern that it is totally unethical for any leader of a political party to make statements day after day to the media and to ask umpteen questions in Parliament—all with the assumption of guilt—about the substance of an issue that is before the Privileges Committee whilst the hearings are still in progress and does she believe that that is turning the Privileges Committee into a kangaroo court? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have on a number of occasions in the House expressed concern about the extent to which the comments of the Leader of the Opposition have compromised the position of his party’s members on the select committee. 
John Key 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week when asked whether any member of the Labour Party was involved in the process leading to Mr Glenn’s donation: “Mr Williams has been clear on the public record that he has not had such a role.” when she knew from Mr Glenn that Mike Williams certainly did have such a role—or is this just another secret she decided to keep from the New Zealand public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Williams has been very clear in his statements that he did not act as any kind of facilitator for that funding. Further I am advised by Dr Cullen who was at the select committee that Mr Glenn was also clear that Mr Williams had not been a facilitator. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that in February 2008 when Mr Glenn told Helen Clark the Prime Minister that Mr Williams had known all along about the donation because he had sanctioned it that that was not new news to Helen Clark because she has four conversations a day with Mike Williams and in the last 2½ years I am sure he has popped that into the conversation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely assure the member that no conversation of that kind between Mr Glenn and Mr Williams was reported to me at the time. 
John Key 
: Are the facts of the situation not that when the Prime Minister rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008 she was not ringing him to ask whether he had accepted a donation from Owen Glenn—because she already knew that—but was ringing him to ask whether he had left a paper trail that would see both of them get caught as they have been? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now—really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have been quite clear about why I rang Mr Peters. It was because Mr Peters was being reported as denying that he or his party had received a donation when it was being suggested to me that he had indeed received one. 
John Key 
: Is it not as simple as this: the reason the Prime Minister has not sacked Winston Peters for taking a donation from Owen Glenn is that she would be sacking Winston Peters for a donation that was sanctioned by the Labour Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a ridiculous and wrong allegation. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister answer this question then: is Owen Glenn a liar? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am reflecting on the use of the term liar in the House in respect of a person who is not here to be able to defend himself. Maybe the member would like to rephrase his question. 
John Key 
: Does Helen Clark agree with Michael Cullen’s assertion of the fact that Owen Glenn is a liar? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the member cared to consult the transcript of yesterday’s Privileges Committee meeting he would find me saying that as far as I am aware nobody has called Mr Glenn a liar. I certainly have not. I have once in this House in the open in answer to a question said he was confused as to whether his donation was to New Zealand First or to Mr Peters. He was confused about that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I think the easiest way forward is for Mr John Key simply to ask whether Helen Clark believes that Owen Glenn is telling the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is very kind of you but I am sure Mr Key is quite capable of framing his own questions. 
John Key 
: Is Owen Glenn telling the truth then? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said today I have given both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters the benefit of the doubt. I frankly would compare honesty on this side of the House any day with Mr Key’s because we have yet to have any honesty about what he talked to Lord Ashcroft about what he talked to the Exclusive Brethren about what he talked to the Spencer Trust about when he was raising money and what he talks to offshore merchant banks about when he is talking about flogging off the State-owned enterprises. Let us have some honesty from Mr Key. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Owen Glenn’s lawyer who was present yesterday and gave advice to Mr Glenn about how he should answer the majority of questions put to him by the committee is none other than Geoff Harley who acted for Fay Richwhite during the wine-box inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that indeed he was involved with the wine-box matter. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think Mr Williams who was described today by Owen Glenn as “wrestling with the truth over these matters” and “an unmitigated falsifier of veracity” and who has previously tendered his resignation after making misleading statements about Mr Glenn’s financial relationship with the Labour Party remains fit to be a person who is a director of four Crown entities and is earning a Government salary of $107000 a year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the comments made today are not atypical of the sort of hyperbole that flows when acquaintances fall out. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with my advice to Winston Peters—that is to take an oath tonight expose himself to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act 1961 and tell the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding of the requirement of those appearing before the Privileges Committee is that they are acting in effect as though they were on oath in a court. 
John Key 
: Why did the Prime Minister not just simply tell the New Zealand public back in February that there were two versions of events and that she could not reconcile the statements from Owen Glenn and the version of events by Winston Peters; why did she keep the New Zealand public in the dark for the last 6 months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That question was asked yesterday and I replied as follows: I am not in the habit of going out and saying I had private conversation A and private conversation B. As far as I am concerned that was at that time primarily a matter between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters and Mr Peters and the news media. 
John Key 
: Is it not a summary of events that 2½ years ago Owen Glenn checked with Mike Williams who almost certainly checked with Helen Clark that it was OK to give $100000 to Winston Peters; that in February 2008 when Owen Glenn told the Prime Minister she already knew about the donation and had known about it for a long period of time; that for 6 months the Prime Minister kept it secret from the New Zealand public and the reason she has not sacked Winston Peters is that she is involved up to her eyeballs in that; and that what happened yesterday was that the truth jetted into town? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe there is a shred of truth in anything that member has said and frankly from my knowledge of him that would not be a surprise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table legal advice that actually taking an oath at the Privileges Committee does expose a witness to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act— 
Document not tabled. 
Thyroid Treatment—Eltroxin 
3.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why has the Government not provided alternative medication for the more than 800 New Zealanders who have reported adverse reactions to a new formulation of the thyroid drug Eltroxin to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: As we announced yesterday the Government is looking at two new alternatives for people who are having adverse reactions to Eltroxin. We have been encouraging Pharmac and the ministry to act as quickly as possible. An announcement will be made by Pharmac and Medsafe at lunchtime tomorrow. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree with South Canterbury pharmacist Allan Campbell that the number of adverse reactions that have been reported to this medication make it “the worst in New Zealand’s drug history” with the number of people reporting reactions to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring increasing every day; if so why has it taken the Government 11 months to act after it first began to receive serious complaints of adverse reactions? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised that the adverse reactions in New Zealand remain somewhat of a mystery. Nowhere else in the world has the new formulation of Eltroxin caused this level of reaction. Mystery or not however we have been working to secure alternatives for new users and people who are suffering side effects. The Government has been encouraging the Ministry of Health and Pharmac to act swiftly. However this Government makes drug policy decisions based on evidential systems and processes and on health needs not on the politics of the situation. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he concede that alternative thyroid drugs have been available for the duration—the 11 months—that Medsafe does have a fast-track approval process that could have been used to get alternative medications quickly to people experiencing side effects and that by failing to act sooner hundreds of New Zealanders have been forced to endure debilitating side effects such as heart palpitations blurred vision depression and so forth; and by what date will he guarantee that an alternative subsidised medicine will be available for these people? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: My advice is that Pharmac with the support of the Ministry of Health and Medsafe has been asking the industry for a number of years now to offer an alternative to Eltroxin and no alternative has been offered on the market. Two are now being offered and announcements on this matter will be made tomorrow. I am assured that within a matter of weeks an alternative to Eltroxin will be on the market. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he concerned about the patronising comments that Medsafe has made publicly about those reporting side effects even implying that it was all in patients’ heads; and why does he think Medsafe blamed the patients dragged its heels and failed to respond for almost a year to what was clearly a very serious case of drug reaction? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: No I have no knowledge of those comments but what I do know is that Medsafe and Pharmac have been working for some time now to get an alternative to Eltroxin on the market and an announcement will be made tomorrow to show that it has achieved that. 
Budget 2009—Available New Spending 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is Treasury’s best estimate of how much is available for new spending in Budget 2009 after pre-commitments and future charges against it are deducted from the allowances signalled in the 2008 Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That depends on whether one includes only spending commitments formally made or whether one includes an assessment of likely major pressures. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give us an estimate based on those expenditures that were committed to in the 2008 Budget plus those that were not formally made but have to be paid—such as $200 million for teachers’ pay increases—and can he advise that it will leave him with something like $300 million of spare cash for the 2009 Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In terms of the formal commitments in the Budget I think the total was $1.14 billion out of $1.75 billion. Since then however there have been a number of further commitments: the police pay round is now under consideration by the police for ratification; there has been a pay offer to caretakers and cleaners which I think is still out for ratification; and there are obviously the commitments in relation to the emissions trading scheme—the one-off payments in that case. There are also some issues of course around the acceleration of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. If all likely major pressures are included then the operating allowance is pretty much fully committed for 2009-10. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the allowance from 2008 for 2009 is already committed before the Government has started making extravagant election promises how does it intend to fund the undertakings it has made to the Greens including a $1 billion insulation programme and $400 million for emissions trading scheme compensation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sorry but I misunderstood the member’s question—I thought he was referring to the spending allowance for 2009-10. His latest supplementary question refers to obviously the contingency for 2008-09. There is still some room left in the 2008-09 contingency at this stage—probably around $20 million for 2008-09 and $32 million for the out-years. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals on alternative ways to raise additional revenue to provide greater opportunities for new spending in Budget 2009? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a proposal from National to scrap the research and development tax credits which would cost businesses a very large amount of money and to transfer that money from the private sector to the public sector. I have also seen amongst proposals to somehow or other retain a cap on the number of bureaucrats proposals for new Government departments such as a new Department of Immigration a new Environmental Protection Agency and—apparently—a new office of chief scientist. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has advised the Public Service to find significant savings—or to use the Labour Party term “cuts”—in order for him to be able to cover the commitments he has made to the Greens including a billion-dollar insulation programme and $400 million of emissions trading scheme compensation and in order to cover the fact that the allowance he has left for the next Budget has virtually gone already? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot. The member appears to be having a conversation with me when the conversation really seems to be directed towards his benchmate. Mr English is arguing that there is no room in next year’s Budget for large new fiscal initiatives; well that is something I have been trying to tell him for quite some time. 
Families—Advocacy 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the voices of families are heard in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government has supported the Families Commission to be an advocate for the interests of families. We are prepared to be clear about that regardless of which audience we are talking to unlike the leader of the National Party who delivers what line he thinks will get the most applause. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What issues has the Families Commission advocated for on behalf of New Zealand families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Families Commission has consulted widely to identify issues that are of concern to New Zealand families. These include preventing family violence supporting parents and improving families’ work-life balance. It is not surprising that the National Party wants to axe—the Leader of the Opposition describes it as “rebalancing”—that kind of advocacy because we know that it runs counter to its agenda on opposing paid parental leave scrapping 20 free hours’ early childhood education and dismantling Working for Families. 
Sue Bradford 
: What does the Minister think of today’s calls from the Every Child Counts conference which is happening here in Wellington for children’s interests to be at the centre of Government decision-making; and will she support the establishment of a cross-party parliamentary group for children after the election? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I support and have demonstrated as the Minister responsible for social development having children at the centre of all policy development. I certainly endorse the comments that were made. In regard to the cross-party proposals I have had a discussion with Baroness Massey about the way cross-party groups operate in the United Kingdom and I do not believe they have much that is dissimilar to what is already operating in New Zealand. 
Judith Collins 
: What is her justification for the Families Commission spending $200000 of taxpayer dollars on a summit and cocktail party to discuss “money time and relationships” and does she endorse the Families Commission soliciting sponsorship for this vanity event by promising to help telephone companies to “capture potential customer details and the age of their current phone for replacement provide assistance in developing a publicity plan that targets your specific consumer markets and provide media access to top experts and celebrities” including Rajen Prasad and how does Rajen Prasad’s self-proclaimed celebrity status help everyday Kiwi families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I will answer just a couple of points in the many questions that the member raised. I strongly support the comment of National list candidate Viv Gurrey who said the Families Commission is the bedrock for the community sector. In regard to Rajen Prasad I would put him up as our No. 12 candidate against National’s Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith as its No. 12 candidate any day. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. She did not address the question which was about her justification for this outrageous spending. She did not address that at all. I ask you Madam Speaker to ask her to now address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully to the member’s question and a variety of thoughts were contained in it. As the Minister indicated normally a supplementary question contains one thought which then enables a response. The Minister chose to answer at least two of the thoughts in the question so she addressed it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: How can the Minister claim to listen to the voices of families when her Government gave its complete backing to the criminalisation of good parents even though 80 percent of them voiced their opposition to that Draconian law and although 390000 signatures were collected to force a referendum her Government has put the referendum off until 2009 when it could have been held on polling day this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Again I will address just some of the questions contained in the member’s supplementary question. In respect of the first part of his question the overwhelming majority of this Parliament voted against allowing a legal defence for assaulting a child. That is what section 59 of the Crimes Act was—a legal defence for assault. If people around the country had known that that is what section 59 was about the referendum would not have gained any signatures in my view because I do not know a single New Zealander who supports assaulting a child. In respect of the latter part of the member’s question I say that if the member was able to participate in question time more regularly he would have heard the Minister of Justice address that issue on many occasions. 
Emergency Departments—Pressures 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his recent statement that accident and emergency department performance is “pleasing” in light of the reported crisis situation in many of the country’s emergency departments? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes I am pleased that in the last period for which information is available between 99.9 percent and 100 percent of patients in the most seriously ill category have been seen immediately. I am also pleased that in the second-most urgent category the proportion of people seen immediately has improved from 59 percent to 72 percent over the last 3 years. That is a much better performance in large emergency departments in particular especially in Auckland and Christchurch. District health boards have been introducing improvements in the way they manage patients and that as I have said is pleasing to this Government. It might actually be unpleasing to the shroud-waver from Whakatane. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister seen the comments of the head of the Auckland City Hospital emergency department Dr Tim Parke in respect of the Minister saying he is pleased with the performance of accident and emergency departments that the crisis in hospital emergency departments causes as many deaths as occur on the roads; and what will he do about that? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have seen those comments. As I have said to the House there has been a steady improvement in the number of people being seen immediately in emergency departments. Even if seeing more people in emergency departments faster is not pleasing to the member it is pleasing to this Government because it evidences progress over any period when there was a Government of another persuasion rather than this one. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does the Minister say it is “pleasing” that hospital emergency department waiting times mean that at Wellington Hospital emergency department a dialysis patient waited in excess of 20 hours and that some patients were languishing on trolleys for 9 days—does he think that is pleasing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There are always individual cases that members can raise in this House and if they want individual answers on them they can put questions to me as Associate Minister or to the Minister of Health and they will get them. What I actually said is that a lot of investment is going into steady improvements in patient management. The focus of most of that work is on making sure that patients can be quickly admitted to wards and not have to wait. That is the record of this Government—one of steady improvement—and any day the member likes to compare that to 9 years under National he will be welcome to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has Labour broken Helen Clark’s promise that “If someone needs a hospital bed they will get it and they will stay there as long as they need to.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I have said to the House is a reaffirmation of that commitment. More people are being seen faster and getting access to treatment faster than ever before and that is a record that will stack up against anything National performed in 9 years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister want to reconsider his answer in the light of the fact that official information from his own district health boards shows that patients at Wellington Hospital’s emergency department are waiting over 130 percent longer now than they were a year ago? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have given the House the national data that is most recently available which indicates that right across the hospital system more people in serious condition are being seen faster than at any time in hospital history. Even if that does not satisfy the member it is very satisfying to this Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If this Government has spent so much money on new buildings new emergency departments new this and new that why are most of our major hospital emergency departments in code red unable to sufficiently see patients so that they are languishing for days in emergency departments; and is that what Labour will continue to offer people in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What Labour and its associate parties in this House have offered and are offering is a much more effective and efficient hospital system than we have ever had before. The member is so regularly waving shrouds in this House that he is beginning to look like one. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister really think the House will believe that the health system is effective when women in their 80s are required to languish on hospital trolleys under bright fluorescent lights for 4 days? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It does not sound effective in that particular case. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s the point. It’s not. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I see—so we are going to measure the entire health and hospital system against the one case that Mr Ryall brings to the House every now and then! That is a ludicrous way of measuring the quality of the health system and the member makes himself a joke to any health professional who knows it. 
Hospitals—Bed Numbers 
7.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he aware that public hospital bed numbers have declined from 2.48 per 1000 people in 1988 to 1.56 in 2006 although our population has increased significantly in that time and what is being done to solve the problems arising from this decline? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I am advised that the biggest decline in hospital bed numbers per head of population occurred during the 9 years of the last National Government. By contrast this Government has been engaged in the largest hospital building and redevelopment programme in New Zealand’s history. We have built seven new hospitals done eight major upgrades and built 10 new specialist facilities and seven more hospital redevelopments are almost complete or are under way. That record would stand against that of any Government in New Zealand’s history and is in stark contrast to the pitiful efforts of the last National Government. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister of Health aware of estimates by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine that a 15 percent increase in bed numbers is needed and will this increase be achieved under the Government’s hospital building campaign? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has shown a commitment to investing in infrastructure. However it is important to take a holistic approach to relieving pressure on emergency departments and that work is currently under way at the Ministry of Health. The work will look at how we can make hospitals more efficient and will look at the role of primary health care where about 12 million people received treatment last year to find out whether more resources are needed. If they are needed this Government will allocate them in a way that the National Government never got round to doing in its 9 years in office. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that health infrastructure keeps pace with the increasing population and new ways of delivering health services? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I have indicated there have been new hospitals upgrades new specialist facilities 1000 more doctors and 4000 more nurses. The track record of this Government in health bears little resemblance to any track record of any other Government in recent history so we can be very proud of that. Is it perfect? No it is not. Is it in crisis? No it certainly is not. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How many existing hospitals such as Kenepuru Hospital in Porirua are currently underutilised when they could be used to reduce the bed shortage? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not have information on exactly that but I am quite sure the Ministry of Health and the district health boards are working together cooperatively and constructively to make sure they get the best use out of all the hospital facilities and resources that are available to us. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government has spent so much money and built so many more hospitals why is the public health system lurching from crisis to crisis in the final months of this dying Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think I have given enough facts before the House today to deny any kind of crisis in the health system. The alternative is that the health system is being well managed and is being invested in in ways that have never happened in recent years. The member tries to gee himself up like someone in the dark yelling out to cheer himself up but actually this Government has an incredible record in terms of health and hospital care and we will stand on that record and not let the facts get in the way of our prejudice. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek leave of the House to table a graph that shows the trends in public health care over the recent period under National and— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Conservation Department—Re-branding Project 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she support the re-branding project for the Department of Conservation to contract an agency as per the request for proposal that sets out the key elements of the project as a brand audit research review brand strategy brand communication strategy and an implementation plan? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I support the project by the department in so far as its goal is to promote the message that conservation is a must for New Zealand’s economic future not a nice add-on. I was unhappy at supposed leaks within the Department of Conservation that circulated false information about the costs of the project. But Nick Smith should understand about leaks having had his limp conservation policy announced by Trevor Mallard last week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has the department in the last year abolished the marine conservation group and laid off marine scientists and at the same time established a marketing and communications group at a cost of $610000 per year and why are marketing and re-branding more important than marine conservation? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is absolute hypocrisy actually. National does not even have a policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please withdraw the comment— 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I withdraw and apologise. I just want to add that the Department of Conservation’s marine science capacity has been retained. It is focused on implementing a network of marine-protected areas around the coastline and it is working with local communities and iwi to achieve that. We have that in our strategy as opposed to the conservation policy of the Opposition with no mention of marine conservation. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other proposals has the Minister seen to reposition the valuable species recovery and land protection work done by the Department of Conservation? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have seen a proposal misleadingly entitled “Net conservation benefit” that would instruct the Department of Conservation to trade off New Zealand’s national parks and heritage instead of protecting them. This was in National’s blue-green policy. It will still not deny that this is its real agenda for conservation instead of the collection of copycat Labour policies released last week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Would you consider whether the answer is in line with the frame of the original question in my name? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was about branding. It was a general question so I ask the Minister that in future when she addresses questions she does stick to that theme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister justify the additional cost of the re-branding of her department and the setting up of a new marketing and communications group when at the same time it is closing Department of Conservation offices like the Murupara office in her own Rotorua electorate; and does she support that choice of priorities? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: As to the first aspect of that question conservation is fundamental to the economic future of our country; it is about the quality of our water the air our wildlife and our land. My department is committed to both its advocacy and protection roles. This is not about changing our signs or our letterheads. And in regard to the second aspect of the member’s question it is actually the Opotiki office to clarify. [ 
Interruption 
] No Murupara is not. The Opotiki office is an operational matter that the department is considering. However the proposed reorganisation is not about removing resources on the ground. It is about improving the Department of Conservation’s effectiveness right across the country. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that she supports the funding and the contract for an advertising agency for a branding project; that she supports the establishment of a new marketing and communications unit within the Department of Conservation; and that she also supports closing of local offices including Opotiki and Murupara? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that there are three questions within that supplementary question. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: As to the advertising agency this is specialised work; it is standard practice for Government organisations to contract agencies from time to time instead of permanently tying up valuable resources for one-off projects. Specialist advice helps to ensure that communications are effective and targeted. With regard to the communication staff this is not just about conservation staff doing advertising campaigns. Most staff in fact are working on the very things that National said that it wanted more of—corporate support for conservation-led projects and community-led projects on private conservation land. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with marketing consultant Owen Scott who wrote in the Christchurch  
Press 
 yesterday: “Government departments too often get carried away with ‘branding’ projects when the value they deliver is only marginal … DOC shouldn’t obscure the great work it does with this sort of muddled marketing thinking.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have not seen the article but this is an outcome of the operational review the department has just undertaken that made sure the department’s resources match its strategic direction including its commitment to advocate for conservation and to protect our conservation land. National on the other hand has made clear that it will water this down even further. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the brand refreshment project for the Department of Conservation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: As the Minister has not had time to read it I seek leave to table the criticism of the department’s re-branding project by Owen Scott marketing consultant. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Treaty of Waitangi Clauses—Inclusion in Legislation 
9.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Is it Government policy not to include Treaty clauses in bills other than Treaty-related legislation; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Is he aware that the Maori Focus Forum set up by the Commissioner of Police called the absence of a Treaty clause in the Policing Bill a particular disappointment; if so why did Labour vote against the Treaty clause put forward by the Maori Party for the Policing Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not aware of that statement but even if I had been I would not have been inclined to alter my advice to my colleagues. These matters are dealt with on a case by case basis by the Government. It is not clear what a Treaty clause would mean in this instance. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does he recall the Minister of Immigration justifying Labour’s decision to vote down the Maori Party’s proposal for a Treaty clause in the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill by stating that Labour had consulted extensively with what he called “the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Labour Maori caucus”; if so what was the advice of the Labour Maori caucus about Treaty clauses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The advice I receive on that is that these matters should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Labour has a proud record of implementing Treaty settlements over recent times. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Would he agree that the fact that Ngai Tahu has taken a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal against the emissions trading scheme now makes that bill Treaty-related legislation; if so why did the Labour Government vote down the Maori Party’s proposed Treaty clause for the emissions trading scheme bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The tribunal would arrive at its own decisions. The fact that somebody takes a case does not make it a Treaty-related issue; otherwise any case could be taken to the tribunal and halt any kind of action in that regard. In relation to the Ngai Tahu situation there are two quite separate issues. The first is whether in any sense the Government in the 1990s negotiated in good faith. There is a process to deal with that issue through an independent process. The second is whether any general Government legislation may at any point impact in any fashion upon any value of any property that resulted from a Treaty settlement. If the argument is that it cannot then that is to set up a two-tier process of legislation in Government from this point on. In any case the member and I suspect Ngai Tahu have not fully taken account of the fact that emissions units and the value of those will apply to the land bought before 2002 and at a carbon emissions price of $23 a tonne Ngai Tahu actually is a net gainer from the transfer. 
Government Appointments—Election Period 
10.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he stand by his statement of 29 July 2008 in relation to the convention that significant Government appointments are deferred in the 3 months prior to a general election that “the Government has adhered and always will adhere to that convention”; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can the Minister possibly believe that nonsense when yesterday the Government announced the appointment of five new members to the Waitangi Tribunal which is clearly a significant and important body and when the latest that the election can be held is just over 2 months away not 3 months away? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We certainly have been consulting on significant appointments— 
Hon Bill English 
: No you haven’t. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes we have. The Tourism New Zealand appointments were consulted upon and National is currently being consulted upon appointments to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Those are but two examples. 
Hon Bill English 
: If he is saying that the Government is adhering to the convention and always will why should anyone believe that when the Government last week within 2 months of an election appointed an expert panel to inquire into electoral law which is one of the cornerstones of our constitution and clearly of great significance; and does not the appointment of that panel inside the 3-month period show that Labour has learnt nothing and continues its high-handed arrogant and totally partisan dealings with our constitutional arrangements? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: With respect to the member the question actually discloses his ignorance as to the principles that underlie the period of restraint. That restraint applies to significant appointments to bodies with decision-making roles and significant assets and not to advisory bodies. Thus the appointments to the expert panel on electoral matters which has an advisory role and not a decision-making role are not covered by the principles. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government continues to support the tenure of Mr Mike Williams—labelled today by one of his friends as a liar—on a range of Government entities including five State-owned enterprises and other Crown entities; why does the Government continue the appointments of that person? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s not on five SOEs. He’s making it up. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member is making it up. The double standards of the National Party have to be brought to the attention of the House again. It was those members when in Government who appointed Mr Robert Browne of the Waitemata Trust as the chair of Transit. That is the same Robert Browne who as a trustee of the Waitemata Trust pumped $1.4 million into National Party coffers before the last election. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister appointed the new members of the Waitangi Tribunal appointed the expert panel on electoral law and made over 50 appointments to conservation boards and others did he advise those people that because he had not consulted— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of State Services does not appoint the members of the Waitangi Tribunal; the Minister of Maori Affairs is the responsible Minister for that purpose. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is actually true. Would the member cast the question in terms of ministerial responsibility please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether when he participated in the appointment of five new members of the Waitangi Tribunal the expert panel on electoral law— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very clever way of rephrasing it but it would make any Minister responsible for any appointment under the Government because of course in the end all these appointments are passed through Cabinet. But the actual Minister responsible is the Minister who proposes these matters to Cabinet. I do not think that any of the appointments on the list that Mr English read out are actually the responsibility of the Minister of State Services. 
Hon Bill English 
: Speaking to the point of order I note that the Minister answered earlier questions about all those appointments so this question must be in order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That was because I was trying to save the House time by not raising points of order to try to keep— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree and I should have intervened at that point. I thought there was the one question but it became a line of questioning and obviously objection was taken. I apologise to the House for not ruling that question out of order at the appropriate time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister under the convention for which he is responsible—that significant Government appointments are deferred in the 3 months prior to an election—ensure that all— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Of course these are conventions that in the end lie in the hands of the Prime Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true too. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —as the Minister responsible for the  
Cabinet Manual 
; the responsibility does not lie with the Minister of State Services. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Minister said he stood by his statement that the Government has adhered and will always adhere to the convention of not making appointments 3 months prior to a general election will he follow through on it by making sure that all appointees are told that the Opposition would not be bound by those appointments should it become the Government and that they run the risk of an incoming Government not confirming those appointments? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member again misrepresented the principle. It relates to significant appointments not to all appointments. Given that there have been 50 appointments to conservation boards one might actually conclude that those are not the sorts of high-level appointments to which the principle applies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister not just confirm what the Labour Party is doing—that is trying to stack public bodies with its cronies before it is defeated in a tide of funding scandals? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for the Labour Party but has a responsibility in terms of his ministerial authority. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that significant appointments to bodies with decision-making and funding powers such as Tourism New Zealand have been consulted upon and that National is currently being consulted upon other appointments including to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. 
Housing Policy—Reports 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent reports if any has she received on housing policy? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have seen a policy release from National showing that aside from repeating its old answer to everything—which is tax cuts—it has flip-flopped on Labour policies such as income-related rents as well as shared equity and National now parades as good ideas those very things that it was vigorously opposing in the House just last week. It shows that when the National Party is not actively leaking its policies it is busy copying ours. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has she seen any policies that would affect State housing? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Yes. I see that despite regularly railing against the waiting list which National created by selling 13000 State houses National has confirmed that it will not be increasing the stock. Although Labour has created nearly 8000 new State homes spending $221 million last year alone in doing so National is saying to those on the waiting list: “Give up now.” and to those thinking about applying: “Don’t bother.” 
Numeracy—Year 11 Expectations 
12.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why did he state yesterday that he disagreed with the Post Primary Teachers Association’s views that the numeracy requirements at level 1 reflect “a very low level of achievement” and that they are not “likely to match the community’s expectation of numeracy at year 11”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The member as usual is distorting my response to her question yesterday. I was responding to her claim that level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a school-leaver qualification. That may be the position of the National Party but the Labour-led Government has always regarded NCEA level 2 as the minimum achievement we want all students to achieve. 
Anne Tolley 
: Will he tell the House why he thinks he is right and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and teachers are wrong when they have clearly told the public that the level 1 numeracy credits are so easy that students still at intermediate school should be able to pass them? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not disagree that we can always improve exam processes. Indeed I announced in this House in June—and had the member who asked me the question been listening she would know this—that we are doing a review of standards with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education. Indeed we have done things like appoint 33 permanent moderators whose task is to ensure that assessment in schools is of the highest quality. We have done lots of other things like introducing achievement endorsements to NCEA certificates and we have made national assessment reports available online to parents. Actually there are lots of processes to improve the assessment process. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What progress has the Labour-led Government made in raising student achievement? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It has made fantastic progress and of course it would have done so because Labour has doubled the amount of investment that has gone into education. In 2007 just 5 percent of students left school with few qualifications or no qualification. In 2002 it was 18 percent. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that question and the Minister’s answer are pretty wide of the primary question I asked which was about the PPTA’s view that numeracy requirements at level 1 reflect a low level of achievement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister please try to confine his general answer to the specific question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I am trying to tell this House and am successfully doing with most members but not of course with the Opposition— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no need for those comments. Just address the question please. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The question that has been asked of me is whether the NCEA is a robust system of assessment. The NCEA is an internationally recognised assessment system; it is recognised by all British Australian and American universities. Assessment processes in New Zealand are being examined by educational specialists from all over the world. The MP who asked the question National’s spokesperson on education seems to despise what happens in our schools. I am proud of what New Zealand teachers are doing to educate the next generation of New Zealanders. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister prepared to take on the PPTA’s criticism and to liaise with the association to ensure that NCEA level 1 and indeed other levels of the NCEA are maintained at levels necessary to test the abilities of the relevant age groups; and if necessary is he prepared to increase those levels? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am always prepared to talk to anybody about education. I regularly meet with the PPTA and with many other groups associated with education. I would be happy to sit down with the member and hear his views on education. 
Anne Tolley 
: If there is nothing wrong with the mathematical skills of our young New Zealanders and the PPTA and teachers are wrong why is it that under this Labour Government the National Education Monitoring Project shows that from 2001 to 2005 there has been a “clear decline” in the ability of our 9 to 10-year-olds and 12 to 13-year-olds to deal with simple number facts? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: New Zealand students score extraordinarily highly in international comparisons. In the Programme for International Student Assessment scoring system or assessment process which all 31 countries of the OECD submit results for New Zealand students come out as being top in the English-speaking world in science they come out as being equal with Canada’s students in literacy and they come out as being top in the English-speaking world in numeracy. Those results speak for themselves. New Zealand teachers are doing an excellent job in our schools and the National Party should be praising education not condemning it. 
Dail Jones 
: What action is the Minister taking to liaise with the PPTA on NCEA levels with regard to for example computer teaching bearing in mind the great problems that are associated with that area? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I meet monthly with the PPTA. In addition to that I regularly attend regional meetings of the PPTA. In respect of the particular area the member has raised with us about computer skills I have met not just with the PPTA but also with the Computer Society in order to try to work through a process whereby we have standards that are acceptable to everybody. 
Anne Tolley 
: If there is nothing really wrong with the maths of young New Zealanders and he thinks that the PPTA and teachers are wrong can he explain why the ability of our 9 to 10-year-olds and 12 to 13-year-olds to count do basic arithmetic and algebra measure and do geometry is either stagnating at 2001 levels or has actually declined since 2001 according to the National Education Monitoring Project? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Actually I do not disagree with teachers. I think teachers are getting it right and in most cases they are getting it very right. Of course we have some students who could achieve much better than they are doing. That is why the Government is introducing the revolutionary Schools Plus programme into our secondary schools. But I remind that member and this House that New Zealand students stack up extraordinarily well against students in other developed countries. 
Dail Jones 
: What assurances can the Minister give the House and the PPTA about NCEA levels 1 2 and 3 in the field of technology teaching where there has been considerable concern about the dearth of teachers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I spend a great deal of my time visiting schools and I am aware that schools are concerned about the number of teachers in the technology area. We are trying to recruit more teachers. We are making it easier for overseas-trained teachers who are suitable to teach in New Zealand schools to be registered. I am continuing to be in dialogue with the New Zealand Teachers Council the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute over these issues. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister explain this to the House: we have teachers telling us that under Labour we are giving out numeracy credits to high school students for a test that is far too easy and we have the National Education Monitoring Project backing that up and telling us that basic mathematical skills amongst our primary and intermediate schoolchildren are either stagnating or declining under this Labour Government yet the Minister is still telling the House that everything is OK and the mathematical skills of New Zealand children are no cause for alarm? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not telling this House that things are OK; I am telling this House that things are very good. Of course some students are not succeeding as well as they should succeed which is why we are bringing in Schools Plus. But I can say that when a comparison is done with comparable countries in the OECD New Zealand schools are shown to be world class. That member should be proud of what is happening in our schools not rubbishing teachers and education. 
General Debate 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Up and down the country New Zealanders are telling me they want a fresh start. You see they are absolutely sick to death of this dying and decaying Government and they are sick of a Government that is sick of them. They are sick of a Government that is preoccupied with scandals—a Government that just bounces from one crisis to another. And they know one thing and it comes through loud and clear: it is time for a change. That is what is going to happen. 
Up until yesterday the hardest question to answer when it came to the Winston Peters donation scandal was this one: why did Helen Clark not act when in February 2008 Owen Glenn told her that he had donated $100000 to Winston Peters? Why did she not act? The Prime Minister at least publicly wants to trade on the illusion that she holds her Ministers to account that she has a standard for them that they are held to some sort of ethics. Why did she not apply those to Winston Peters back in February? You see the Prime Minister could not reconcile the version of events between Winston Peters and Owen Glenn. Yesterday the answer jetted into town. Yesterday Owen Glenn said he told Helen Clark in February 2008 that he had donated to Winston Peters. Well you know what? Helen Clark already knew that because Mike Williams would have told her in one of the four phone calls he makes to her every single day. 
You see when Mike Williams was told in 2005 he actually OK’d the donation; Owen Glenn asked for the permission of the Labour Party. What are the odds that Mike Williams never told Helen Clark in 2 years? I do not think so. This is the interesting bit. When Helen Clark rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008 she did not ring him and say: “Winston did you take $100000 from Owen Glenn?” She rang up and said: “Have you left a paper trail? They’ll get us caught.” And what he said to her was: “Don’t panic everything is all right.” You see Winston Peters misled Helen Clark all right not about getting the $100000 but about the hard evidence that he left behind. And if he gets sacked—and who knows whether he will—it will not be because he took $100000 from Owen Glenn because that was sanctioned by the Labour Party. He will not be getting sacked for any reason other than this: it is called stupidity. He allowed Helen Clark and himself to be exposed for what they were up to their eyeballs in a scandal that will bring this Government down. 
That is why New Zealanders are sick of the Government. What happened was that 6 months ago Helen Clark sat silent. She relied on the soothing assurances of Winston Peters that they would not get caught and yesterday they did. Yesterday the truth jetted into town. You see what worried Helen Clark yesterday was not what Owen Glenn would say about Winston Peters; it was what Owen Glenn would say about the Labour Party. That is the bit they do not like. What Owen Glenn said is what New Zealanders should know. He unveiled for New Zealand the real Helen Clark—the one who said that the means justify the end—“It doesn’t matter how much you keep them in the dark. It doesn’t matter how much you lower your standard. It doesn’t matter what you have to do to stay there: just stay there. That’s all you have to do.” 
We have seen the real Helen Clark complicit with a scandal that is involving not just New Zealand First but the Labour Party. That is why they feel sick—because they know that is what it is and that is what it takes. Owen Glenn said something pretty interesting yesterday—well he actually said a lot of things that were pretty interesting I have to say. He said they are not his type of people. Well I agree with him. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 When it comes to credibility in this area John Key has absolutely none. Ten days ago John Key was asked a straightforward question by Duncan Garner on TV3. Michael Ashcroft the British billionaire who had donated to the Conservative Party and to the Australian Liberal Party was in the country. Duncan Garner asked John Key this question: “Has anyone in the National Party met Lord Ashcroft over the past week?”. John Key said: “Ah yes I think they have.” Duncan Garner opened the trap a bit wider. He asked the question again and what did John Key say: “Ah yes I think they have.” “They have”—somebody else had! John Key was not telling the truth. John Key knew that he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had met him in his own house at his invitation. As the trap sprung Duncan Garner commented when he knew John Key had nowhere to hide and Mr Key came out and admitted it. Why did he not tell the truth in the first instance? Why did he not tell the truth? What did he have to hide? 
Then there was the John Key of the Exclusive Brethren fame—the John Key who got the email that stated: “urgent important and strictly confidential.” That is how the email was headed. John Key got it Don Brash got it and both of them told the country that they did not open it. Can anybody believe John Key about that? The answer is no. So the member should not come in here and show off his double standards with the accusations he makes about other members. You know John Key. You know that you opened that email. You met Ron Hickmott a couple of weeks beforehand. You knew that he was promising a million dollars but you did not tell the truth. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know Mr Goff is desperate to get himself looking angry on TV but he is not allowed to address a member of Parliament as “you”. That is a reference to the Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right but in this debate I have allowed another speaker to use that term. But Mr Goff is aware of that. Please continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: So there are two examples. Mr Key did not tell the truth about the email that he got promising $1 million. Every campaign organiser for the National Party around the country knew that. Mr Key who had met with the Exclusive Brethren and who got the email promising a million dollars went out and told the country he knew nothing about it. Mr Key should come clean. Mr Key knows that that is not the truth. Mr Key knows that he did not tell the truth to TV3 when he tried to pretend that he had not met Michael Ashcroft. There is Mr Key talking about secret donations. The National Party at the last election got $2 million from secret trusts anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were what their commercial motivation was in promising you that money and in giving you that money and they want to know what the National Party and Mr Key promised in return. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Goff is even more desperate now to get himself on TV while yelling at the Leader of the Opposition. But the fact is you drew the matter to his attention. He now appears to be deliberately flouting the Standing Orders and I suggest that he should not be allowed to do so. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are right of course but he is not deliberately flouting the Standing Orders. But I give notice that during this debate any speaker who uses the term “you” or refers to me—I do not wish to be involved in the matters—will be pulled up by the Chair. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There we have the double standards and the hypocrisy of the National Party— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Point of order— 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —$2 million in anonymous donations not transparent not open— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very concerned that this member is continuing to speak when a point of order has been called. This is the third time I have risen to my feet on a point of order—both of the last ones have been valid—and this member is just continuing to shout. Everyone knows that when a point of order is taken in this House the speaker is to be quiet and to sit down because that is how points of order are dealt with. That is my first point. The second point is that he is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. He might use it in the Labour caucus but not here. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I say firstly that the point of order had ended. Secondly many times people have talked about other parties being hypocritical. I addressed it about the National Party. Mr English and you know that that is in order and Mr English is embarking on a well-known tactic when he is under pressure when he is under attack and when he is feeling embarrassed—trying to interrupt another member’s speech that is just 5 minutes long. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There are to be no comments or interjections during a point of order but a point of order is not a point of order until the Chair acknowledges that person and that was the case here. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: So we have had that hypocrisy from the National Party. We have had Mr Key who is up to his neck in hiding the fact that he knew about— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been many Speakers’ rulings regarding the “h” word. Speakers’ rulings have not been suspended today and the member is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. That is the rule of this House. It is not discretionary; it is the rule of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to withdraw please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw. Then there are the National members who make comments when they think the public is not listening that are different from the comments they make in public. Mr English is guilty of that. He told us that Kiwibank was going to be privatised to the Australians and he said that Working for Families would be cut. Mr English—“Mr 20 percent” at the last election—has egg all over his face because the mask slipped and he forgot what Crosby/Textor had told him. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As is typical with allegations from that member none of those things is true. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that not only were they true but the whole country saw Mr English get up and apologise for embarrassing John Key by saying them. I rest my case. 
Those are the double standards of the National Party with its secret agenda its secret donors—the people who are financing it. The National Party does not tell New Zealand what those donors’ commercial motivation is or what the National Party is promising them in return. It is the National Party that says one thing in private and another thing in public. It does not let the public know what the secret agenda is. It is the National Party that will have Michael Ashcroft paying for Crosby/Textor the spin doctors to try to keep the National Party’s mask from slipping. But the mask keeps slipping. Maurice Williamson promised $50 road tolls for each week and Bill English told the country that he will privatise Kiwibank—nobody believes their denials. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That speech shows why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make the point that that member broke up the previous speech seven times; he is going to get it back. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was close to a point of order because it was procedural—yes. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Deputy Speaker you just heard a threat. It was a threat to a member and a threat to the Speaker and that is certainly out of order. I raised a series of points of order. No one here contested that they were valid points. Perhaps the last one could have been construed as a debating point but the rest of them were dealing directly with breaches of the Standing Orders. It is absolutely outside the order of this House for Mr Mallard—who may want to take me out and punch me but who actually has to stick to the rules here—to threaten the Chair and threaten a member with disruptive behaviour. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It would have been out of order certainly if the member had in any way threatened physical harm to another member. That was not the case. It was a threat but in my view the threat was to use only what any member is entitled to use—that is a point of order when the member thinks there has been a breach. Points of order have to be points of order. I know that the last point you raised was not a point of order just as Trevor Mallard’s was not either so let us go on. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is another even better reason why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive. Why do I say “the rot”? It is because the chain of events around the Owen Glenn donation now makes it pretty clear that an arrangement over party funding at the heart of the coalition between New Zealand First and Labour was deliberately kept secret from the public. 
You see Helen Clark who is apparently the world’s most competent Prime Minister has made an enormous mess out of what should have been a straightforward issue. The fact is that she does not know what to do and I will tell members why she does not know what to do. She cannot sack Mr Peters for taking the donation because the Labour Party jacked it up. She cannot sack him for keeping it secret because she kept it secret. She cannot sack him for misleading the public because she has misled the public. The fact is that the person who has set herself up as the judge is a participant in the crime. That is why no one believes that she can hold herself at arm’s length from this process say that someone else will sort it out and say that it is nothing to do with her. 
Let us go back to how all of this came to public light. I can tell members that none of it came to public light because of honesty on the part of the Labour Party—none. In fact it has come to public light only because of the honesty of Owen Glenn a man whom the Prime Minister of New Zealand has systematically tried to defame for the last 3 months in order to try to undermine the credibility of what he disclosed yesterday. Yes Labour kept saying that he was a drunk who was losing his mind but he is not. Let us understand how this came to light. Labour gave Owen Glenn an Order of New Zealand; Labour gave him a Queen’s honour. That was fair enough; he is a philanthropic Kiwi who has done a lot for his country. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You rubbished it at the time. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No we did not rubbish it. Mike Williams the president of the Labour Party was asked: “Did Owen Glenn give Labour money in the last 12 months?” and “Honest Mike” said no. What happened next? “Honest Owen” said yes. Is that not a funny pattern? Whoever says no is wrong whether it is Mike Williams Helen Clark or Winston Peters; whoever says yes—who is always Owen Glenn—turns out to be right. Mike Williams denied the $100000 loan but then he had to say yes. That is how we found out. It was because Owen Glenn told us. 
What was the next thing we found out? It was that the Prime Minister under pressure had to own up to the fact that she had always known. We saw a systematic and calculated set of mistruths in the media and in the House from the Prime Minister of New Zealand that were designed to hide a $100000 donation and her knowledge of it. That is the raw truth at the core of the rot in the Beehive. The Prime Minister of New Zealand misled the House and misled the media for a $100000 pecuniary gain to her coalition—full stop! She has never denied it. She has never denied she misled the public. She has used a calculated mistruth. I—and I think John Key—had asked her in the House whether Mike Williams was any part of this transaction. We knew he was because his name was in emails and Owen Glenn said he had spoken to him and checked it out with him. But what did Helen Clark say? She said Mike Williams was on the public record as denying it. She knew he was part of it she knew his name was in emails—we must get a fresh start. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I tell the people of New Zealand that they have just been listening to a member talk nothing but a load of rot. In fact Bill English has become Parliament’s “Mr Boo-hoo Cry-baby”. He is on his feet every minute that he can to take a point of order because he cannot take the heat in this Parliament. He has never been able to take the heat in this Parliament. He will be taking a point of order in a moment because he does not like the truth. 
The behaviour in this Parliament over the past few weeks reminds me of the title of that book  
Through the 
Looking Glass 
. The public have been looking through that glass and they are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses they are getting from the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wondered what happened to the big brave threat from Trevor Mallard to disrupt my speech with points of order. Perhaps he is not up to it in the way that he used to be. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not in order to break up a member’s speech with a frivolous comment that is not a point of order. Thank you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member who has just tried to break up my speech will now disappear from this place because he cannot take the heat. “Mr 20 Percent” led the National Party to its worst ever defeat in this Parliament— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In 100 years. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —in 100 years. You know the public of New Zealand are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses from the National Party. They are appalled at the attempts of people like John Key and Bill English to be the ringmasters who manipulate public opinion. They are sceptical of the claims of the National Party that although every other party in Parliament is on the take National’s complicated webs of secret trusts secret donations and secret meetings are all lily-white. 
Let me tell the House this. Everybody knows that Owen Glenn donated to the Labour Party. Everybody knows that because he said so we said so and we declared it. But who donated to the National Party’s secret trust? Was it Fay Richwhite? Did it donate to National? Did people donate who were buying the policies that are now being leaked every day? Do we know what that money is for? We do not have a clue because donations to National are so secret and so hidden that all one can say when hearing from those members is that it is nothing more than two-faced cant. We know that they received close to $2 million before the last election from their secret donors. Not one of those donations was disclosed to the public. 
People out there see through the daily political farce from the National Party. They know the National Party needs the sideshows. It needs to have them featured on TV night after night and on the talkbacks because any scrutiny of its flimsy policy would have the public asking: “Change to what?”. That is what the public are saying. The public do not trust National. Members can just take the TV3 poll as an example. Fifty percent of New Zealanders do not trust the National Party not to have a secret agenda. 
Ladies and gentlemen National has a secret agenda; members should make no bones about that. Members heard from my colleague Phil Goff about John Key trying to cover up part of that secret agenda. John Key could not answer straight up and down as to whether he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had to um and ah about it. It took Duncan Garner three questions to get it out of him but finally John Key admitted that he had met with Lord Ashcroft. Then he was asked: “Did you approach him or did he approach you?” and he replied: “Oh I’m not sure of the answer to that. It was in my diary so I just went. I saw him. I am not quite sure who set it up.” John Key also said exactly that about the Exclusive Brethren. He said the Exclusive Brethren had an appointment in his diary he did not know who set it up and he does not even remember whether he met with them. 
John Key was then asked: “Do you recall whether Lord Ashcroft rang you or you rang him?”. Well of course a question like that is a major question for the Privileges Committee at this very moment but does John Key remember whether Lord Ashcroft rang him or whether it was the other way round? He said: “Well it could have been arranged by my …”—and he could not remember what the “my” was—and then he said he just followed what was in his diary. Well can members believe that? 
Today John Key accused the Prime Minister of knowing about Winston Peters’ donation. Well let us just see what John Key said about donations to his own party when he was asked. He said: “I don’t know who donates to the National Party. Of course one knows who donates …”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I remind the House that that is the Minister who got on her high horse all last year demanding the need for openness and transparency around financial big-business cheques and who rammed through this Parliament the Electoral Finance Bill at the very time the Prime Minister was complicit in hiding a $100000 donation. You see this Clark-Peters Government is so up to its eyeballs in muck that New Zealanders are yearning for a fresh honest and uncompromised Government that can get on and address the issues that matter to this country of ours. Let me canvass why Owen Glenn’s testimony has torpedoed any resemblance of honour or of trust in this Government. It is simply because MMP Governments stand or fall on agreements between coalition partners. The $100000 payment from Mr Glenn jacked up by Labour was conditional on Mr Peters committing to prop up this Labour - New Zealand First Government for the full term. At its most basic the Clark-Peters Government was stitched together by a tawdry backhander for $100000. This is nothing less than our democracy being for sale. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not need to remind you Mr Deputy Speaker given the experience you have had that imputations of corrupt practice are totally out of order in the House especially when they come from the only MP in the place to be convicted of lying. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I say that the first thing is that the latter point is grossly untrue—grossly untrue—and of course the words the member used at the end of his point of order are strictly out of order. 
Ron Mark 
: The first point— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not need much more help. 
Ron Mark 
: The first point I made was exactly a correct point of order and the member himself a very experienced front-bench member and a former Minister knows precisely what he was doing. I will withdraw and apologise if he would like to tell the House what he was convicted of. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will end this matter there. It is true that no member may make reference to the corruption or otherwise of a party or a member in this House. But the member who raised the matter ended his point of order on a similar note so let us proceed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence to the comment made by Mr Mark which is disorderly and outside of the Standing Orders. I ask you Mr Deputy Speaker to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I took offence at the imputation that my party stitched up a corrupt deal so I say to Dr Smith that this is 30-all. I will withdraw and apologise for using the word “lying” but if he would like to tell us what he got convicted of it would be easier. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As the member knows people make withdrawals and apologies in this House with no lead-in and certainly no follow-up. I will now ask Dr Nick Smith to withdraw and apologise and I know he will do so. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. What has been exposed is the rotten underbelly— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will just ask Mr Ron Mark to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is it a fresh point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes sir. So that I do not make the same mistake again would Dr Smith do me the honour and the privilege of telling me exactly what he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I say that the issue the member refers to was in respect of a Nelson mum and dad who lost their child. The House might be interested to know that Ron Mark personally approached me and said he thought I had done exactly the right thing in standing up for that Maori family. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think all sides will be satisfied now. Dr Smith your time is as it was. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This whole episode has exposed awful double standards. Members should remember that Labour and New Zealand First spent all last year ramming through this Parliament a tawdry law that was designed to screw the electoral laws as much as possible in favour of this Clark-Peters Government. We heard speech after speech from New Zealand First and Labour members demanding open transparency with respect to big-business donations. The duplicity was highlighted when Labour specifically amended that law to allow for overseas donations if it just happened that the overseas donation was from an ex-resident. That description just happened to fit Mr Owen Glenn. Labour’s principles are that big money from overseas billionaires is fine as long as it is going to Labour. That is as far as their principles go. We have seen a trail of dishonesty from Labour and New Zealand First over this whole affair. The first porky was when Labour Party president— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No point of order. I just ask the member to withdraw that reference. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. The Labour Party president denied receiving any post-election donation from Mr Glenn but subsequently had to admit that he had received $100000. Labour then became complicit in February with Winston Peters’ denial that he had received $100000. Not only did Prime Minister Helen Clark know that that was untrue; senior Minister Trevor Mallard was at the meeting where it was disclosed that $100000 was paid. The question I have for the Government is: if Helen Clark has stood silently by at the sidelines knowing that Winston Peters’ statement was untrue how many other Ministers have been telling untruths to the public of New Zealand while she has sat silently by? All the transcripts show that both the Prime Minister and Mike Williams knew but denied knowing anything. It is no wonder Mr Glenn has today slammed the Prime Minister as self-serving and the Labour Party president as dishonest. Here we have at the highest levels of Government dishonesty and a complete breakdown in trust. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say today that she found Mr Glenn’s evidence disturbing and that she may now cut Mr Peters loose after the passage of the emissions trading legislation but the reality is that she knew everything back in February and misled the public. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We are a nation distracted. We are distracted from the vital issues of our times by the New Zealand First funding saga. I acknowledge to members that it is a distracting show and an important issue. I look forward to the support of National and Labour to reform campaign finance laws so that we can try to avoid these kinds of things happening in future. 
But we need to remember what really matters. One of the things that really matters in this country is the calamitous pollution of our rivers lakes and aquifers. Environment Waikato has just released a report showing that three-quarters of rivers in the Waikato region are unsafe to swim in and about three-quarters are unsafe for stock to drink from. These rivers have increased nutrient faecal and sediment loads and nitrogen and phosphorous are increasing at a rate of about 2 percent a year. 
Water pollution from intensive industrial dairy conversions is threatening the water supplies of Christchurch and Auckland. It is threatening the native species that live in and around our rivers and lakes. Our kids can no longer safely swim in our rivers and even whitebaiting is becoming an endangered activity. The economic futures of tourism and the primary sector are actually endangered. Whitebait is a treasured and iconic cultural food resource but this New Zealand institution is being eliminated in front of our very eyes by industrial dairy conversions. Only the Greens are speaking out about it and calling for action. Our rivers and streams are now so polluted and degraded that two of the species that make up the whitebait catch are actually endangered. 
We would never let Parliament outlaw whitebaiting but the parties in this House are perfectly happy to let the giant industrial dairy polluter CraFarm pour so much cow faeces and urine and fertiliser into our rivers that it kills the species that make up the whitebait catch. CraFarm are known colloquially as “CrapFarm”. We would never let a regional council stop people whitebaiting but when the industrial dairy polluter CraFarm ends up in front of the Environment Court four times in a row for polluting rivers and groundwater with cow faeces and urine we just let them carry on doing it. When “CrapFarm” got pinged in the Environment Court with a $37500 fine for polluting a pristine river in the Hawke’s Bay it did not care. It did not care because it had a $5 million turnover on that property—it was a minor expense. 
How stupid are we that we let “CrapFarm” sell its milk to Fonterra which happily buys the milk—making a fortune for both—and then tells us how clean and green it is? Well aside from being sick and tired of hearing about the New Zealand First funding saga I am also sick and tired of hearing Fonterra make promises about being clean and green while continuing to collect milk from “CrapFarm”. 
What is the Government doing about it? It has released the draft national policy statement on freshwater management. Let us see what is in it. The unenforceable preamble to the draft national policy statement states that one of the goals is to “meet the recreational aspirations of New Zealanders including that Freshwater Resources are swimmable.” Well I can go along with that; I agree with that. The objective section of the national policy statement waters this down a little—if members will excuse the pun—to “actions to ensure appropriate Freshwater Resources can reach or exceed a swimmable standard.” So if it is not an appropriate freshwater resource if that river is not deemed appropriate then “CrapFarm” is free to defecate in it and members’ kids will not be able to swim in it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not really want to interrupt the member; he is talking about one of the worst polluters in the country and a company that is very challenging to regulators around the country. However I think he should refer to it by its proper name rather than the name he is calling it at the moment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thought that was the proper name. If it is not the use of that word in this Chamber is unacceptable. 
Ron Mark 
: I think the name that Dr Norman should be using is Crafar is it not? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: CraFarm. 
Ron Mark 
: Well that is not what we understand. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is that a word that you are just using to describe this farm Dr Norman or is it the correct name of the farm? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: The name of the farm is CraFarm; it is known colloquially as “CrapFarm” because it constantly pollutes rivers and streams. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. You may use another description but not that—not in this Chamber. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. As long as a river is not deemed to be an “appropriate” freshwater resource then CraFarm is free to defecate in it and members’ kids cannot swim in it. 
The policy part of the draft national policy statement which is the guts of it says that regional councils when making regional policy statements or plans must consider eight factors related to water the eighth and last of which is: “The value of swimmability to the community.” This has to be weighed up against the seven other factors including the economic value of existing investments in irrigation—we all know what that means. 
While the majority of our lowland rivers are so polluted that it is dangerous for our kids to swim in them our whitebait is disappearing because of pollution and habitat destruction and we are in the middle of a massive conversion to intensive dairy across the country the Government’s response is to produce a toothless national policy statement that will probably take a decade to come into force anyway. So is it any wonder that the newspaper  
Rural News  
wrote recently “Fonterra must be sitting smugly on the back of its lobbying against the Government’s … hard line for the dairy sector”? It was a victory for what  
Rural News  
called “a powerful consortium of agriculture interests”. This powerful consortium is the new face of farming. Family farms that have looked after the land and rivers for generations are being replaced by huge dairy corporations. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 There is no particular news that the National Party has been leaking right left and centre. In fact the Opposition resembles a colander. What happens is that if one looks a little more carefully one sees the leaks come in two types. There are the unplanned leaks and the planned leaks. The unplanned leaks are the ones that are the result of the Opposition having something of a secret agenda and those leaks began about a year ago. The planned leaks have a very different origin altogether. They are due to the splits and divisions that are within the National Party and I want to briefly explore both of them. 
The unplanned leaks began when Tony Ryall said about a year ago that National would ensure that the fees control system for general practitioners would be knocked on the head. That was repeated today if we look at the fine print of the leaked health policy that Jim Anderton offered the House. The unplanned leaks continue. The leaking of the accident compensation policy originated in Australia when one of the people who thought he or she would make a lot of money out of it started talking about it. The leak of about $50 a week for road tolls had its origin when Maurice Williamson got himself too excited on  
Agenda 
. The leak about Kiwibank being sold eventually had its origins in the secret tape-recording. The leak about employer contributions to KiwiSaver being ditched had its origins in a couple of backbenchers telling the truth for a change—and on it goes. 
These are unplanned leaks that occur because a party sets out to try to ensure it has a secret agenda underneath the given agenda. That is why as Annette King said New Zealanders now believe to the tune of about 50 percent versus 30 percent that National has a secret agenda. In fact a quarter of National’s own supporters believe the party is not telling the truth. That figure is from a Television One poll. 
But it is the unplanned leaks that I think are the most interesting. I am referring of course to the National Party policy documents that have ended up in our hands. Someone or some group has planned for that to happen. Policy documents in their final form are not circulated widely before release especially in the National Party and the party’s leader John Key has said as much but still the leaks have occurred. National says the documents arrived on our side of the complex all at once. They did not. Trevor Mallard said that if Mr Key knows which policies were in the bundle then Mr Key would be able to list them. Mr Key has declined to list them and he has declined because he does not know. He does not know because there is not one big batch. 
So I ask members why there is a serial leak. Well I do not know why and I certainly do not know who from but it seems to me that one or more people at the centre of the National Party do not want to win this time. Presumably they do not want to win this time and presumably that means they do want to win next time and presumably that means there needs to be a change of leadership in the meantime. That may or may not be the motive of that person or those persons. I said that I do not know. 
I do not know why Nicky Hager is able to say long after the release of his book  
The Hollow Men 
 that he is still receiving emails from within the National Party. I do not know why those leaks or the leaks of policy continue. I do not know why but I cannot come to a more logical conclusion than the one that I have given. One or more people at the centre of the National Party would prefer to win next time not this time and the only reason for that would be to change the leader in the interim. I ask members why that might be. 
I ask why there might be such a strong feeling amongst one or more people at the centre of the National Party. Well again I do not know but I ask members to remember that Bill English lost the leadership by one vote. I ask members whether they remember that and that Bill English was surprised by his loss and that Bill English’s colleagues went out and celebrated his victory the night before he was defeated. I ask members whether they remember that therefore someone in the National Party swapped his or her support overnight and whether members remember the rumours as to who that person was—John Key. That may be what the leaks are all about. Maybe the National Party is more deeply riven and divided and ill at ease with itself than is first apparent. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That truly depressing contribution came from the man who has been completely obsessed with leaks ever since he was the chief strategist for the Welsh Labour Party and we all remember what happened to that party. I would really love to hear from him as to how there is a secret agenda if everyone knows the agenda because we have released 27 policies and the Labour Party has released none—none not one zero. That is how many Labour has released. 
The debates we are talking about this week are all about the heart of our democracy because the scandal we have seen unfolding before our eyes has all gone to the heart of our constitution and the heart of our democracy. It is no secret to people and it should be no secret that I used to respect Helen Clark once but now I know a lot more about her. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That was an error of judgment. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was an error of judgment but a lot of other New Zealanders used to respect her too. They did not necessarily like her; they did not necessarily like what she stood for; but they did generally respect her. They used to say that they did not like what she had in terms of policy but that they respected her. Well I do not respect her now actually because I know now that she does not put her country first. I know that she does not even put her party first because if she did she would not put her party through this appalling situation. But I do know that she puts herself first. Helen Clark’s legacy for this country will not be about getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD because New Zealand’s ranking has now got worse not better despite the best commodity prices for generations. Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about improving the health of New Zealanders because we know that despite a doubling of the health budget over 9 years ordinary New Zealanders still cannot get treatment. Almost daily we hear about elderly people being left on trolleys in corridors in emergency departments while the Government says “Everything is going great thanks very much.” 
We know that Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about better educational standards for our children because now we see that one in five New Zealand children leaves school with no qualifications. Many of those children do not even have proper literacy and numeracy skills. We certainly know it will not be about improved law and order because we know that under her Government gangs that used to be just groups of thugs with tattoos on their faces—tattoos that are spelt backwards—are now suited-up smart fully organised criminals. Under her watch on law and order gangs are now fully organised international criminals—thanks very much to Helen Clark and her legacy. 
What is her legacy apart from that? What we have is a flagrant disrespect and disregard for our constitution. The highest court in our land has been done away with by a majority vote in this Parliament. We have seen a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money. We have had a flagrant disregard for the rules of common decency—[ 
Interruption 
]—which is something the member opposite Trevor Mallard would have some trouble with too. And we have seen a flagrant disregard for the truth. We now know that the Prime Minister sat by in February when Winston Peters said: “No.” and that he did not know anything about this money. We now know that Helen Clark and the Labour Party knew all about Owen Glenn providing $100000 to Winston Peters’ legal fees because it was her president who put Mr Glenn together with Winston Peters—we know that. We also know that Mr Glenn told Helen Clark all about it in February and we know from Mr Glenn today that Helen Clark already knew about it when he told her. 
We now know that this Prime Minister has been more concerned about her position about her power and about her next position than about the standards of her Ministers. This Prime Minister has made a career out of cutting free people who became inconvenient. Do members remember her Crown driver and the great dash across the Timaru plains? Who was prosecuted? It was her Crown driver. What about the police officers who were helping her? Did she stand by them? No she did not. 
Hon Member 
: They had a whip-round. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh that is right Government members had a whip-round to pay a few bucks towards their costs. That was appalling. This Prime Minister cut people like Dover Samuels free apparently because of swirling allegations. Whatever did happen to Dover Samuels under this Government and this Prime Minister? 
This Prime Minister has cut people free when they have become inconvenient. Now there is one other thing that she is going to cut free and that is this country. She cut free this country when it became inconvenient for her because she wants power and that is what it is all about. Our constitution has in fact been laid bare. Our constitution and the fact that it relies on conventions and that it relies on common decency has been left free. This Government cares more about power than it does about us. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think the only question about that speech by Judith Collins is how much Lord Ashcroft paid Crosby/Textor to draft it. That is the only question about that speech. I think it was pathetically delivered. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member has made an allegation of corruption about me by saying that Lord Ashcroft paid money for that speech. I take exception to that and I seek your assistance to have the member withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That barely turns what you have raised into a point of order. You are drawing a long bow to say that in my view. I know a lot of members are offended but I think it needs to be a little more direct than what Mr Mallard said. If you are really offended and you say you are I am sure Mr Mallard will withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
If I were Crosby/Textor I would ban that woman from using my lines. If I were Crosby/Textor I would not let her deliver my lines. Lord Ashcroft will be asking for a refund if that woman continues to deliver the lines that he is paying for. It is an outrage for Crosby/Textor which is generally known as being a very very competent right-wing spin-meister. It would hate to know that that woman is allowed to deliver the lines that Lord Ashcroft is paying a fortune for. 
We can see by listening to that member why more than half of New Zealanders now know that the National Party has a secret agenda. It has a secret agenda and New Zealanders all over the country are waking up to the fact. I say: “Thank you very much.” to the National Party source who keeps on sending stuff to me in my office. I think it is absolutely wonderful that the National Party is leaking and that stuff is coming to my office. I want to say one thing. Information is not coming only to my office. I never got the health policy; it apparently went to Mr Cunliffe’s office and then Mr Anderton’s office. So we now have at least a multiple methodology in respect of the leaking on the part of the National Party. I have never seen the health policy from the National Party. I have still not seen it but I will be interested in seeing it later on and hopefully I can get it from Mr Anderton. 
If the National Party is so proud of its policies why does it not put them out? National members want to do what Roger Douglas did in 1987 and that was to announce policies after the election. That is what Roger Douglas did in 1987. I want to make it clear that we will not let the National Party do that. If National members are too scared—if they do not have the backbone—to release their own policies then we are absolutely prepared to do it for them. If National’s leader is not proud to stand up in front of an audience and deliver his policy then the Labour Party is prepared to get it out there and make sure that the contrasts are available. 
I am not sure who is responsible for this leak. I think Pete Hodgson got it right. It is someone who thinks that he or she would be a better leader than John Key and does not want to wait another 3 years. I think Simon Power is probably the next leader but I am not sure he has got the nasty bones in him to actually do this and that takes me back to thinking it is more likely that it is coming from Bill English. But in a funny way it might be Bill English in the end working for Simon Power. Not even the National Party believes Bill English any more. He is the person who wanders around saying that John Key does not understand the Working for Families package. He is the person who wanders around saying he wants to prepare Kiwibank for sale. He wanders around indicating that he knows John Key is not competent. So I say to Bill English if he is the source of the things that are coming to me: “Thank you very much but I don’t think it will work for you because your colleagues know you a little better than that.” 
Nathan Guy 
: This is hopeless! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I agree with the member who is running for Otaki who says that Bill English is hopeless. I agree that Bill English is hopeless and therefore he will not be promoted. The member who I think is a whip for the party is showing no loyalty to Bill English at all. I agree with him that Bill English is hopeless. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document. That document is all of Labour’s policy in respect of the 2008 election and it amounts to absolutely zero in terms of what it has announced today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 On the eve of this year’s general election it is time to take stock of the social statistics of this country as many of them have deteriorated during the 9 long years of this Labour-led Government. I want to give a list: violent crime domestic violence child abuse youth crime is up by an amazing 47 percent fatherlessness single-parent families teenage pregnancies the number of abortions the rate of home ownership—whoever believed it would get to this sorry state—truancy misbehaviour in schools and promiscuity. The time has come for change because if we do not change nothing will change and we will see those dreadful statistics continuing on their downward path. If we do not begin to change and address them now we will leave a terrible legacy for our children and our grandchildren. 
The Kiwi Party which I am proud to represent will have some positive policies to bring before this year’s election. First of all we will stop the criminalisation of good parents by repealing the anti-smacking law and appoint a royal commission to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown family violence and child abuse. Secondly we will invest in marriage preparation marriage enrichment and parenting courses through faith-based charitable iwi and other third sector organisations. Thirdly we will raise the drinking age back to 20 years and establish detoxification and rehabilitation centres for those struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. Fourthly we will put victims’ rights including full restoration for property crimes before criminals’ rights with no bail parole or home detention for violent criminals. Fifthly we will change the law and practice so that the number of abortions is greatly reduced and require parental consent prior to under-age abortions. Sixthly we will introduce income splitting for couples with dependent children and we will reduce the burden of rates by removing GST. Seventhly we will reinforce our democracy through regular binding referendums on controversial issues. 
The Kiwi Party will establish a nationwide goal of home purchase affordability for the medium price of a house at four times the average annual wage. Currently it is about 6.6 times the average annual wage which is totally and completely unacceptable. We will recognise parents as being primarily responsible for the education of their children and ensure that funding follows the student. We will reduce hospital waiting lists through patient-focused funding involving both public and private hospitals. It is pretty simple. We will let the money go with the patient. It will be patient led from top to bottom. We will protect every family’s recreational hunting and fishing rights and we will ban the aerial application of 1080 poison. We will address injustices occurring in our Immigration Service and adopt more family-friendly immigration policies. I could go on and on. We will address the social consequences resulting from the Prostitution Reform Act. All of these are commitments and pledges that we will carry through. 
When I talk to people across this country who have different ethnic backgrounds and different nationalities and who speak different languages they tell me that although they love this beautiful country they are saddened they have to bring up their children in a country that now has the second-worst social statistics in the OECD. In all those categories I have mentioned this country is near the top of the list. We are either in position two or position three and that is simply not good enough. We have drifted along. We have allowed the moral fibre of our country to be stretched to breaking point. We have systematically removed the moral signposts that used to guide our generation and previous generations in the way they should live their lives. We have allowed lawlessness and anarchy to reign in far too many areas of our society. 
New Zealand has been the least corrupt nation in the world which is something we should be proud of but sadly this week we have begun to see corruption arise in so many different areas of our national life. When I sent my letter to the Speaker raising the question of the Owen Glenn donation to Winston Peters I was not out to get Winston Peters; I was out to get to the truth. I say to this House that if we go away from that measurement of truth then we as a nation are in big trouble. We need to get back to those good sound values that have served our country for so long. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 There we have it! There has been a big storm going on in this House but things have quietened down a bit. Today I saw a desperate National Party trying to divert attention from all the problems in its own ranks. It is not really surprising that leaks are happening especially when we think of all those unhappy National MPs who have been sidelined by John Key. They have been left out and they have not been consulted about policy. They have come out and told the truth and then they have just been sidelined embarrassed and humiliated in public. 
Chris Tremain 
: Name one. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will name them—Bill English over Kiwibank Kate Wilkinson over KiwiSaver poor old Maurice Williamson over the $50-a-week toll and Tony Ryall over an increase in doctors’ fees. Soon there will not be anyone in the National Party who has not been ridiculed in public by John Key as he continues to dumb down National. 
How many National policies have been leaked in the last week? Is it two? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s more than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Four. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Four? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No five. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Five! That must be why National rushed out its housing and building policies yesterday to prevent another leak— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But I didn’t have the housing one. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is interesting but that release was a little bit late. We have another day another leak. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Another week another two leaks. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: OK! 
Then there was the Lord Ashcroft cover-up. I am very interested in that because that was leaked by a National Party insider. Lord Ashcroft is a massive contributor to the Conservative Party in the UK and he has used his political connections to ruthlessly advance his own interests. Mr Ashcroft has a 50 percent share of the Belize shipping register known as a flag of convenience. What is a flag of convenience? That is where countries can attract foreign shipping because of their poor labour and safety standards. So if Lord Ashcroft is giving money to the National Party I wonder what the price is going to be. I notice that he also owns a large part of the Belize Bank—is that where Kiwibank would go? Is that who National might sell it to? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Belize? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes to Belize. No one believes that silly story—that National’s policy papers were accidentally lost by an MP but that does tell a story about the shambolic state of the National Party and its caucus. 
Today it is the biggie—it is National’s health policy. What a scary document that is! It is a bit of a re-spinning of Tony Ryall’s admission that National would remove the cap on doctors’ fees. Instead we see that cheaper doctors’ fees and prescription charges will be “kept in the short term”. Well that is really worrying. I feel worried for families. I say to the previous speaker Gordon Copeland that he should be worried for the families that he says he is concerned about. Families depend on lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges and they will not be able to depend on them by the sound of it if National becomes the Government. 
The other thing I will talk about in the health policy is something that Tony Ryall has gone on and on about and that is reducing bureaucracy in the health system—using the usual offensive National Party term for hard-working New Zealanders. Today at lunchtime I met with some of the representatives of the 7000 clerical and administrative workers in the public hospital system. Those 7000 people keep our hospital system ticking over. They answer the phones they meet the patients on arrival they manage the booking systems they keep the records and they provide a valuable public service. If it were not for those clerical workers health professionals would not be able to do their jobs. Those front-line staff—nurses and doctors—would not be able to do their jobs because they would be diverted into administrative tasks instead of caring for people and therefore efficiency in our public hospitals would dramatically decline. I doubt that Tony Ryall thinks about these things because in National’s view these good women and men are faceless non-people whom that party continues to demonise. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And attack. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am really really offended by National’s attack on these so-called bureaucrats when we are talking about real people who carry out very real jobs. 
We have said in this House today that John Key has a big problem. The public do not trust him. They think—in fact they know—he has a secret agenda and they can also see that he has no conviction. They know he will just say whatever it takes. Even in his own electorate of Helensville which I have a small interest in at the moment he is not fronting up. Genesis wants to build a monstrous great thermal power station in their backyard and the residents are very concerned about it but John Key was too busy to meet with his constituents. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 When I came into Parliament in 1996 one of the issues that I was determined to fight for was the New Zealand Defence Force. It was natural for me to want to do that because I had 20 years’ experience in the military—15 years with the New Zealand Army and then as a result of being recruited by British officers 5 years serving in the Sultan of Oman’s Armed Forces in the Middle East. 
When I came into Parliament I took part in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. I undertook to fight for extra pay and extra resources for defence and I can say proudly that I forced the then National Government by embarrassing it to increase immediately the allowances paid to our Defence Force personnel who were deployed to East Timor. I pointed out that the allowance those troops were getting per day was less than the allowance MPs were getting per day for coming to Wellington. 
In 1998 I asked the National Prime Minister about pay rates. Jenny Shipley’s reply was that Defence Force personnel are given free dental care. I was able to focus National members’ minds when I tabled a payslip from a junior soldier in Waiouru which revealed he was getting only $13000 per annum. In 1999 we had a change of Government and over a period of about 5 years there was a change in the direction the Defence Force was taking and we saw about four small increases in pay. 
New Zealand First does not agree with everything that the Labour Government has done with defence forces. We were always opposed to the purchase of 105 light armoured vehicles. We were always and still are—unlike the National Party—opposed to the disestablishment of the air combat wing and we want to see it reinstated. National has flip-flopped on that issue and turned its back on the air force personnel whom it promised would get back their air combat capability. We saw a number of things change for the good but recently with the release of the Ministry of Defence annual report some issues of concern have been raised. They were headlined by the media as “Can’t sail can’t fly can’t fight”. It was quite humorous to listen on the radio programme  
Morning Report 
 to the Minister of Defence Phil Goff fighting National’s “Mr Mainwaring” its spokesperson on defence Wayne Mapp—he is widely known throughout the country now as National’s “Mr Mainwaring”—because it was a bit of a one-sided battle. 
Some things that have happened in defence are not wrong—they are good. The long-term development plan is a good plan. The Defence Sustainability Initiative gives surety and security to defence funding. But the issues that fundamentally underlie the problems the Defence Force faces today are around one simple area: attrition and retention—the loss of highly experienced personnel. New Zealand First has consistently said for a long time now that the only way we can solve these problems is firstly—obviously—to recruit but also more important to retain the high-calibre highly qualified highly experienced middle-management personnel that we are bleeding. But still we do not see a serious addressing of that issue. 
On 28 August I had a briefing from the Defence Force in regard to the new military remuneration system. New Zealand First says it is a good system. The problem is that it has taken us 12 years to get to this point that this remuneration system will not be fully implemented for another 5 years and that unless we see a massive injection into the Defence Sustainability Initiative that allows the Defence Force to boot up pay and salaries—in the same way that teachers have had a kick-start and nurses and the police have had an increase—we will not stem the bleeding. It is no good for the Minister of Defence to tell everyone that our recruiting targets are up and we have an extra 1000 people in the Defence Force; we cannot say we have seriously addressed the attrition problems by recruiting 1000 new people who do not necessarily have experience and who in the main are raw recruits. 
The Defence Force is doing some good things. It has recruited from the UK some good highly experienced people. But the only way that we will stop headlines such as “Can’t sail can’t fly can’t fight” is to put extra funding into the Defence Force pay system in order to give our Defence Force personnel a substantive increase to stem the outflow now. 
I am proud to be standing as the candidate for Rimutaka and I pledge to those Defence Force people at Trentham that New Zealand First stands with them that we will always stand with them and that we will fight for a substantive pay increase for them. We pledge that. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Waste Minimisation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 27 August. 
Clause 1 Title 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As the Committee knows after lengthy debate and a series of successful Supplementary Order Papers National supports this bill. But we are concerned that the title does not go far enough in signalling an important change to the way that people organisations and businesses think about waste. The title the Waste Minimisation Bill states what the bill does. It focuses on waste minimisation which is admirable. But National would prefer to see a similar emphasis on resource recovery so that the Act would become the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Act”. I seek the support of all parties for my Supplementary Order Paper 217 which adds “and Resource Recovery” to the title and I think we will get that support. 
Most people believe that we have to move beyond just waste minimisation; we have to understand the importance of recovering all resources from the waste stream. Indeed Steve Chadwick herself who was the chair of the select committee that looked at the Waste Minimisation Bill for most of that time spoke about wanting a name change during earlier debate on the bill and Nandor Tanczos who of course was the original proposer of the bill was very supportive of a change. It will be only when the public realise and understand the value of the waste stream that they will fully focus on the recovery of all resources. It is only when they understand the value of the waste stream that we will have sustainable businesses mining those resources. 
During the select committee process MPs visited waste management waste recycling waste recovery and special treatment plants. We were really impressed with the innovation and entrepreneurial skills that were being used to deal with the problems of waste. There were lots of new ideas there were lots of new methods and new processes and new ideas were being implemented everywhere we went. Some of our waste was actually being processed and exported overseas—something that had actually come from the waste stream was becoming very profitable and was adding to our export drive. Just today I had a phone call from a business that was increasing its focus on recycling and was doing very well. The owner was keen to tell me that similar businesses in his area were struggling but the shift in his business to increased recycling was underpinning the success of that business. When we have organisations and businesses that are seeing recycling and the recovery of resources as a means of running their businesses successfully that is when we will be very happy. 
It is hard to believe that a country that is so small and so far away from others has organisations that are innovative enough and that are lean mean and efficient enough to be able to export resources that would normally have gone into the tip in the past. In saying that National is very conscious that this bill cannot be allowed to add costs to these pioneer recycling businesses because for these businesses to be sustainable they must be able to operate as cheaply and efficiently as possible. It is really important that they can continue to get those markets overseas and that their businesses can be profitable because without profit those businesses will not be sustainable. National is also keen to highlight the success of these businesses and to focus on the value that can be derived from processing waste effectively. 
If we really want to create long-term successful waste minimisation we need New Zealanders to make a shift in their thinking. They have to shift their thinking from simply minimising waste—although of course that is very important—to looking at waste and to actively recovering as much as possible. I think that shift in thinking would be helped by changing the name of the bill from the Waste Minimisation Bill to the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill”. Once again I seek support of all parties for my Supplementary Order Paper 217 to rename this very good—now that it has been thoroughly thrashed over—bill. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call John Cla—oh I nearly called you John Clark—John Carter. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 Well I answer to a good number of names so another one would not matter. Hone Carter— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He has had occasions in this House where he has been much funnier than John Clark—a stunning member. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well occasionally that is true—how nice is that! Only a few of us would understand that I tell Mr Mallard. But I think Eric Roy would; he was in the Chair at the time I seem to remember. 
It is a great pleasure to talk to the Waste Minimisation Bill. I start firstly by congratulating Nicky Wagner on all the work she has done. She has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation and she deserves to have that noted and to be congratulated on that. I also say to the select committee itself that it was a pleasure to work with all members of the committee and with the staff and officials who worked with us on it as well. As I have said before in this Chamber but it is worth repeating I approached this bill with an attitude developed from wearing a black bush singlet out the back of the Hokianga thinking “Here’s a tree-hugging greenie waste of time.” I must say my attitude has changed absolutely. As we went further into the bill I realised that this issue deserved this House’s time and indeed the focus of not just the Parliament but of the country and in that sense the Greens are to be congratulated on bringing this legislation into the Parliament so that it can be debated. 
Having said that I say that the bill is virtually a complete rewrite of what it was originally. I think the Greens also acknowledge that as well. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A very good Minister. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We certainly cannot congratulate the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard on his input into this bill. I think it is fair to say that the Minister in the chair did not take a lot of notice of it until very recently and only then did he start to change his attitude in the same way I did. 
There are a couple of points that need to be debated and Nicky Wagner talked about what is probably the main issue around this bill. One of the problems and challenges in the select committee was that we continually talked about waste. The problem with that is that it sends the wrong signal. This is not a bill concerning waste or a waste bill; it is about a resource. It is about finding a way to address the resources we have that others have finished with or want to dispose of. One of the challenges was trying to find an appropriate title for the bill. One of the titles we came up was the “Resource Management Bill” but then we thought that probably would not go down too well given that we already have a Resource Management Act and it would conjure up a whole lot of negatives in people’s minds. It was not appropriate to call this bill the “Resource Management Bill (No 2)” or some other take on that title. There is a need for us to shift people’s minds to understand that we have a tremendous amount of resource that we continually just throw away and that is stupid quite honestly. The committee took a lot of time to try to find ways to address this. 
Of course what happens at the moment is that waste management or resource waste management or whatever we are now going to call it—waste and resource management—has become the responsibility of local government. As a consequence it is the ratepayers of this country generally who end up footing the bill. That means it is the end-user or in a lot of cases not even the end-user who ends up carrying the financial responsibility. An argument has been put forward and it is one I support that the cost should be up front. The reason is that we would then get a total change in attitude and responsibility. It means that the people who are producing a lot of the stuff that currently is called waste would suddenly take a different look at it. One of the things we have talked about is product stewardship which has become a major issue that this House and this Parliament need to address—and we have addressed it to some extent in this bill. But the fact is that those people who produce and make the products—the wrapping all the stuff that is associated with current waste—need to change the way in which they address it. 
To be fair a number of manufacturers who came before the select committee suggested they were quite happy to become involved. I remember the car manufacturers for example came before the committee to say that they would be quite happy if a voluntary levy—$500 for a start—was put on each new car they sold. That levy could then stay in a fund somewhere during the life of the car and when the car finally reached the end of its life instead of it being taken into the bush chucked over a cliff burnt out left on the side of the road or whatever it would have a value that the final owner could go and redeem. The vehicle itself then would be recycled and reused. That to me makes a whole lot of sense. It means that several things would happen. All of a sudden there would be a fund of money to help us to be involved in better investigations science and the systems around waste management and resource recovery. It would take the pressure off local government so that ratepayers were not responsible for it. It would also mean that the resource now had a value so that the end-user the final person who ended its life had something of value. But just as important the country would have an opportunity to utilise the resource and lots of businesses—probably smaller businesses—would be established. It would mean in that particular case giving financial security to the people who are in the resource-recovery game. That to me is the nub of this whole debate. We would be ensuring that those good people who are already in the system have the financial means the cash flow to ensure that their businesses are sustainable. It would also mean that we can encourage others to get involved in resource recovery. 
For that reason the title suggested by Nicky Wagner makes a whole lot of common sense. Nicky and I took the opportunity to go to South Australia to look at the system there. I must confess that I certainly was impressed with their system and I think Nicky learnt a lot from that visit as well as did a number of the officials who went with us. It showed that the system could work. We discovered in South Australia that for example the Scout Association—just to name one organisation—now has a turnover of some $13 million a year and it has made a profit of about $2 million a year out of the system it has. This is all based on the fact that it has a product stewardship system and a levy that allows for that financial recovery to be made. Those things are important in this legislation. We will continue to debate those things as we make progress on the matter and as it becomes more acceptable in this country. It already is acceptable but it still has a way to go. We will find that those sorts of attitudes will become part of our society. 
The one thing that the committee was concerned about on the way through was that we did not just set up a system that would develop another bureaucracy. The last thing we need in this country is more bureaucrats and we certainly do not need them in this area. One of the things that we were very careful to try to achieve was that we did not set up a structure that became over-bureaucratic. We did not want to also put in a system that caused more cost to local government. I think that at this stage we have found a happy medium with this bill. I think that as we move forward in this debate and as the bill is implemented and reviewed from time to time by the Minister who is in charge of it—whoever that may be—we will find that further amendments are necessary. This will not be because the bill does not work but because it is time to expand the bill and this will become the norm for us. I think that is a very good thing indeed. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I should perhaps first explain why the Waste Minimisation Bill which began as a member’s bill in Mike Ward’s name then continued in Nandor Tanczos’ name and in my name is now a Government bill. Basically on the last members’ day the Waste Minimisation Bill could not get through in the allotted time. Although we tried to minimise waste National unfortunately wasted a lot of time and we were not able to get the bill through. The Greens have been very supportive of National members’ contributions to this bill and have thanked them for their contribution throughout but it would have been much better had we been able to get through the bill in members’ time so that it could have stayed as a member’s bill with all parties behind it. But we also appreciate what the Government is doing in picking up the bill and making sure that it gets through. Although we would have preferred that the bill stayed a member’s bill—which would have been I think the best way to get it through—none the less we appreciate that it is being picked up as a Government bill. 
In terms of the title change that is being proposed I tell the Committee that we do not support that change. We just do not think it is necessary. We think that the definition of “waste minimisation” in the bill includes resource recovery. “Resource recovery” is also not defined in the bill so to put those words in the title is slightly confusing for that reason. We define “recovery” but we do not define “resource recovery”. 
In terms of Mr Carter’s argument which I certainly subscribe to that one of the purposes is to shift minds—that is to win people over—I am not sure that changing the title of the legislation will necessarily do that. Although we in this Chamber may like to think that people out there spend a lot of time reading the title of the bills we pass through the House I suspect they do not. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I think that what we actually want to do is shift people’s minds away from waste and towards resource recovery and I do not think that changing the title of the bill will make a lot of difference to that. So at this stage I do not see any particular reason to support the title change. 
In terms of the broader picture I tell the Committee that we want to get this bill through before the election so that it can be up and running. That is our key approach at the moment and we look forward to the support of the House so we can get it going. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I was disappointed to hear Mr Norman say he is not going to support this name change because I believe he gave an assurance to our member Nicky Wagner that he would and I find that lack of integrity disappointing. I also find it interesting that Mr Norman stood up and said that it was sad the bill never made it through on a members’ day because I can remember sitting here not too long ago on a members’ night and hearing both him and a certain Minister in the chair filibustering quite obviously through that members’ night to prevent us from getting through the Committee stage. That was disappointing and is probably why we are here now still in the Committee stage of the bill and not debating the third reading and completing its passage. 
It is interesting also that Mr Norman talked about the fact that the bill is now a Government bill. It was probably damn near a year ago—it seems like it was forever ago—that we on this side of the Chamber suggested that the bill should be a Government bill. That was probably the time when the big changes were made. From memory that was in 2006—no that was the first reading. It was the time when the changes were made so dramatically that we suggested it should become a Government bill. We felt there was a lot of work that should be done on the bill including cost benefits and so on. To be honest when a bill is a Government bill it has a lot more resource thrown at it than a member’s bill has and we felt this legislation was important enough to have that resource thrown at it. 
All that aside I actually thoroughly enjoyed the process of this bill. I enjoyed working with the bill and the interaction with the other members on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I enjoyed the way the public became so involved in the bill and the fact that we went out and about and saw and learnt so much. We learnt a heck of a lot about waste and waste minimisation. As I said I applaud the public who are so passionate about this area and about the environment. It was a pleasure to meet and see them. I suppose it is because of the passion and commitment of those who came before the select committee that I totally buy into the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 217 put forward by Nicky Wagner should be voted on and approved. 
Most of the people who came before the select committee talked about the recovery of waste and how a resource once used should be ready to be used again. So many of those people talked about ways they could reuse the waste and do something constructive with it—how they could utilise the waste and even make money out of the waste rather than the waste going into the big bad landfill. National members on the committee took significant notice of the way those people talked about waste. The submitters were using the word “recovery”; they wanted to recover the waste and reuse it. Hence the Supplementary Order Paper put forward that should I hope be supported by the Committee. In going through my notes from the select committee I found I had a comment from a gentleman by the name of Professor Storey from Victoria University who came before the select committee. I wrote his words down and they were: “Waste is just a resource in the wrong space. The trick is to find a way to divert and support it.” Waste is just a resource in the wrong space and when we think about waste in that way we understand the power of the word “recovery” and the need therefore to support Nicky Wagner’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
Also whilst we were out and about looking at various submitters’ and other waste minimisation sources and uses we visited the factory that Nicky Wagner referred to. It is called Astron Plastics in Christchurch or maybe it was Auckland. Anyway it collects waste plastic smashes it granulates it and separates it out. It was fascinating to see how it could take plastic in many different forms granulate it pack it up and ship it off. The fascinating part of that was that the factory had to buy it from Australia because not enough plastic was being collected and recovered from the streets in New Zealand. So it buys plastic from Australia processes it then lo and behold sells it to China. So here we have this factory in New Zealand buying plastic from Australia granulating it then selling it to China. Now if that is not helping the carbon credits I do not know what is. That is just superb. 
The other factory that led us to support the name change Nicky Wagner proposes on her Supplementary Order Paper is a company in Christchurch called TerraNova. This is an incredible company that literally collects waste in the big trucks and after it arrives at the factory big metal-crunchers and machines very cleverly separate out various parts of the waste. The factory sorts the plastic utilises it and literally makes money out of it. It recovers an asset out of the waste and uses it to make itself a fine profit. 
The examples of those three who came before the select committee gave us the confidence if you like to propose a name change to put the Supplementary Order Paper forward and to say that the bill is all about recovery. It is what the public the Waiheke Islanders the small community set-ups and the passionate people who were doing it for their community were calling it. They were doing their bit—putting their mark in the sand if you like—for the environment. They were so proud of the fact that they were recovering household and other commercial rubbish and using it. They were so proud of it. Our support for those people is in the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Nicky Wagner which I hope will be picked up by the other side and voted on accordingly. And I hope that Mr Norman sees the error of his ways and actually understands the trade-off and the deal that was done and the integrity that should be shown in respect of Nicky Wagner. Nicky has dealt with this bill in a very positive way. She has been positive and has tried to find a path through this bill—which has been complicated—that actually meets the requirements of all of us. So I think the Greens’ support for this would be more than fitting. Thank you Madam Chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know that the Government is falling apart at the seams when we have these sorts of desperate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Clause 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will take his seat please. I want to say this very clearly. This is a debate in the Committee. It is a very limited debate on clause 1. [ 
Interruption 
] Do not talk while I am talking. It is a limited debate on the title. So far it has been carried out with integrity. Please may that continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point is simply with respect to a very important amendment that has been put forward by my colleague Nicky Wagner that attempts to amend the title of this bill. Now the Leader of the House Dr Cullen has informed the National Party that Labour will vote for the amendment if we stop the debate. I ask the members opposite whether the principles of this Government the desperation of it falling apart and the basis of it voting or not voting for amendments have now come down to the desperation of the Government wanting to shut down the debate. I just think that that is the most extraordinary thing that I have seen in 18 years as a member of Parliament. This Clark-Peters Government is falling apart at the seams with deals being offered across the Chamber about amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is the deal about the bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is. It is about an amendment Madam Chair if you had listened. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I have listened. Take a seat please because I really am concerned at the games that are being played. This bill has been worked out in such good spirits that to have this last speech about whether one is taking leave and not concentrating on the arguments about a change or no change to the bill but on process is actually taking away the intent of this argument. I ask the member to come to the intent of the argument—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry sit down please because I am still ruling. Would you come to the intent of this debate which is about whether we should have this change and not on the process to close down the debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You are engaging yourself in the debate. The facts are absolutely clear. Nicky Wagner has moved an amendment. Dr Cullen has informed National that it will vote for that amendment if we shut down the debate. It is perfectly proper in debate for me to refer to that sort of deal because I think it is a very poor way in which this Parliament should pass the law of the land. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am not involving myself in debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Withdraw please. Do not tell me what I am or am not doing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I am on my feet right now. You actually criticised me while I was on my feet responding to your point of order. Please take a seat. I have been reading the Standing Orders quite carefully and the Speakers’ rulings. My job is to maintain the rules of the House. The rules of the House state that in Committee we debate what is in front of us. We do not debate process. You are bringing in—and I could see exactly what was happening—a debate on process. The debate that is before the Committee is an amendment by Nicky Wagner on the title of the bill not on the reasons for who is voting for that title or why but on the actual title of the bill and the arguments behind resource recovery or waste minimisation. I ask you— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could you clarify in the light of what I think would be a unique ruling from the Chair in a debate about whether Nicky Wagner’s amendment is passed reference to a deal that has been offered by the Government that it would support that amendment if National stopped taking calls is a perfectly proper thing to refer to in debate? It seems to me that it would be extraordinary if the Chairperson is now to rule that such matters of fact— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you take a seat please. I refer to the argument’s relevancy. In the Committee of the whole House it is the Chairperson’s job to allocate and to rule on relevancy. I say that a debate on procedure is not relevant to this particular debate and my rule is final. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I just think we have an extraordinary state in Parliament where we have— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is always extraordinary for you Nick! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well we know that Dr Cullen’s Government is falling apart and we know that this New Zealand First - Labour Government is in serious pickle with the events today. We know how desperate the Government is to try to advance the last bits of legislation. National says to the Government that the principle over the title of a bill has now come to the point of simply the casual deals that Dr Cullen in his dying days as Leader of the House is trying to advance. 
Nathan Guy 
: The gagging clause! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is the gagging clause as my colleague Nathan Guy would want to present it. This Government really is in its dying days and it goes into this compromising of standards over an amendment! We should be having a debate about the merits of my colleague Nicky Wagner’s amendments— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I agree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I would be interested but the Government has not taken a single call. Its members have simply told us they will vote for the bill if it is advanced as quickly as possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Would you come to the point please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh the point Madam Speaker is this— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Madam Chair! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Madam Chair Nicky Wagner has done an outstanding job as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and during the Committee stage of this bill to knock this bill into legislation that will be workable. National seeks the support of the Labour Party for Nicky Wagner’s amendment not on the basis of some backroom deal but on the basis that it is a perfectly sensible and proper amendment. This amendment from my colleague Nicky Wagner is about including the concept of resource recovery. It is National’s view and an important part of implementing this bill that in the regulatory processes being put in place around product stewardship around the waste levy and the like we take care not to cut across the very good work that is going on all over New Zealand both by local government and small business. 
By changing the title of the bill and making it plain that it is about resource recovery as well as waste minimisation we think that is a constructive change to the bill that this Committee should adopt. We want an approach around this legislation that actually supports and does not undermine the efforts of many of our councils. It is interesting that many of our smaller councils have taken a far stronger lead around issues of waste in supporting the efforts of many enterprises like those in the scrap metal industry that are doing very good work around resource recovery. 
So I tell Dr Cullen that I seek the support of the Labour Party for Nicky Wagner’s perfectly sensible amendment. We seek its support on the basis that the amendment makes a better bill. We do not seek that support on the basis of some procedural issue that Dr Cullen wishes to wind up in respect of the Committee. So I say that Nicky Wagner’s amendment is one of which this Committee should support— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: One of which we should support! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is; she has advanced— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: You should study the English language— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well it is interesting that the Chair thinks that such interjections about the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I said “Order.” I called for order; please continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I thank you for that. Nicky Wagner has advanced a whole series of very sensible amendments to this legislation and we would like to get the support of the Committee for this further amendment to the title that will include the concept of resource recovery which we believe is the right sort of philosophy to adopt when advancing law in this area. 
I hope that members of this Committee will choose to support Nicky Wagner’s amendment and ensure that we give this bill the best title possible. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call on clause 1. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee for a small part of the time that this bill was being considered. I note that Dr Norman says that it was National’s delay that caused this bill to take some time to come back to the House. But I think it must be almost a world record that the bill has had three sponsors. Mike Ward was the sponsor of the bill during the period when I was taking unplanned sabbatical leave and was not in the House so there was certainly a period then that it could have been advanced if it had been adequately drafted. 
I spent 1 year on the select committee and I do not recall that we spent very much time on the bill during that year. We were dealing with other matters and then subsequent to that it took a couple of years to get it here. I think comment has been made that the bill in the form that it was originally drafted was not gathering a great deal of support. However in the caring sharing environment of the select committee and with the good work of Nicky Wagner it has been made into a bill that we are happy to vote for. 
I approach this whole matter I guess from a pragmatic viewpoint. One cannot help but look at history and look at civilisations that do not— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Not all of history please. 
ERIC ROY 
: Does the Chairperson not want to hear my contribution and the relevance of it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do not want to hear the entire history. We are debating clause 1 and we are talking about an amendment. 
ERIC ROY 
: For goodness’ sake! The point is simply this Madam Chairperson. One looks at civilisations that no longer exist—the Phoenicians the Egyptians the Mayas the Incas and a whole range of others—and one has to ask whether history will look at the age of industrialisation and mark it down in the future as a time that might have lasted for a significantly shorter period than some of these other civilisations. That is the point. That is why we cannot continue to utilise or to waste resources that we are harvesting and mining from the ground and to expect that to go on ad infinitum. This bill is a common-sense approach but in a way it does not embrace what is required as a resolution of the issue of how long the industrialised age will last. When we consider this we realise that recycling and waste minimisation are just two items. There is also the use of sustainable inputs the modifying of lifestyles and a whole raft of things we need to embrace. 
This bill is but a step forward. What I like about Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Nicky Wagner is that it says we should actually embrace the issue more widely and treat waste as a resource. That lifts the game a little bit more in terms of broadening our application of practices that will make the industrial age more sustainable. That quite frankly is the point I start from when we consider this legislation. 
Throughout the Committee stage I have said a couple of times that although I am happy to embrace the bill and say we are voting for it I feel that it tends to be in places a little bit prescriptive from a central government point of view and that it does not do enough to sell the package of engaging local bodies and individuals. In some places the setting of fees and levies is certainly very prescriptive and it is my view that more progress could be made if local government and individuals and businesses were required to consider just their responses. 
I grew up reading the writings of Alvin Toffler Rachel Carson and a whole lot of writings that really impressed upon me the need to respond as individuals and as a nation and this bill does a little bit of that. It is important that we embrace practices that will make the industrialised age something that looks after us into the future and continues to provide for us. Our continual harvesting and mining of resources out of the earth and our expectation that that can go on ad infinitum cannot continue. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The question is that the question will now be put. 
Nathan Guy 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry I began— 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Either you are drinking or you are walking around a corner. I am sorry; that was a reference to another time we had. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I cannot believe that you are addressing a member of this House like that. I take offence at that comment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry. Could you sit down and I will explain. When I have started a process and then put the question twice now you have jumped up. Both times you have used an excuse: either you had been drinking a glass of water or you had been moving around the seats. That was the slightly humorous point I was making to you. It was not a necessary point but the thing is that you do not actually get in before I speak. I took a deep silence I then moved and then you called the point of order. I am sorry but when I start to move the motion that is it. 
Now I am putting the motion— 
Nathan Guy 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I am putting the motion. I am sorry; it is as I explained it to you. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. Under Standing Order 137(3) my understanding is that it has to be reasonable for the Chair to put the motion. I have been listening to the debate today; we have made very good contributions on this Waste Minimisation Bill and we still have further comments to make on the title. I would like you to please acknowledge that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am going to continue to put the motion. The reason as I have already explained to you before is that I take notes. I have taken notes throughout I have given a number of people extended periods to talk and I have not finished off their speeches right on 5 minutes so they could complete their arguments. We have covered the point about resource recovery versus waste and we have given a number of examples that have been repeated. 
The question is that the motion will be put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill the Public Transport Management Bill and the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill.  
This motion is moved so that these bills can be passed before the House rises for the 1-week adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill 
Recommittal 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill be recommitted 
to the Committee of the whole House to consider the amendments to clause 28 clause 43 and new section 68 standing in my name 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill 
Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. New Zealand has a proud history of advances in environmental economic and social policy. It is a history that proves that Labour Governments have led the vast majority of important reforms this country has seen. So I am proud that today with this legislation New Zealand has risen to meet one of the great challenges of our time—that of climate change. We are taking our place among the large number of countries that are adopting emissions trading schemes as a measure to control climate change. Already 27 nations in Europe plus Norway Sweden and Scandinavia have emissions trading schemes. Various states in the USA Australia and South Korea are developing them. 
Our scheme is advanced in that it includes all greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol and over time it will encompass every sector of the economy. This is sensible and avoids distortions within the economy. The emissions trading scheme does not create costs; rather it minimises the cost of reducing emissions in accordance with our Kyoto commitment. It does so in a fair and effective way by charging the polluter for increases in emissions and rewarding decreases. It will save New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars between now and 2012 alone. 
Since New Zealand signed the Kyoto Protocol a decade ago this country has debated ad nauseam how to price emissions. Consultation and debate on the issue have been exhaustive and as many commentators have said it is now time to get on with it. We in Labour are not afraid to make decisions on the emissions trading scheme or on other sustainability issues. We have passed legislation to support biofuels and reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. We are committed to having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025 and this legislation puts a 10-year restriction on extra baseload electricity generation from coal and gas-fired sources. It also allows for a $1 billion package for household energy efficiency which is part of the biggest boost to energy efficiency that this country has ever seen. 
It does National no credit that time and again it has opposed every single piece of legislation that promotes a sustainable New Zealand. Right from the start National has been reluctant to participate in the climate change debate which is why when it comes to doing something concrete about meeting the challenge of climate change National members inevitably prevaricate obstruct and call for delay. In the end they do nothing. The so-called six principles underlying National’s opposition to the emissions trading scheme crumble under close analysis. They are just six excuses to do nothing. 
This week on 8 September the  
Gisborne Herald 
 reported the National spokesperson on agriculture David Carter telling a local conference that to include agriculture in the emissions trading scheme would be economic folly. That is the opposite of what his party has said in this House. Whom are we to believe? National has not been able to point to any fundamental flaw in the emissions trading scheme. Instead it has resorted to exaggerated criticisms about process. At least the ACT party has had the honesty to say it has not supported this legislation because it does not support the science of human-induced global warming. In the end we have worked with parties that take climate change seriously—the Greens New Zealand First and the Progressive party—and I thank them for their support. 
This scheme will help to get our emissions down at the lowest possible cost. It will help us to meet our international obligations under Kyoto and it will help to improve the productivity of our businesses. It clearly puts New Zealand on the path to a sustainable future. These are goals we should all aspire to and I am confident that this legislation will assist us to achieve them. We in Parliament have the responsibility to make this decision. We should not delay any longer. I therefore commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is with considerable disappointment that National comes to the third readings of this legislation which is about what I think is the most challenging issue facing not just New Zealand but the globe. The emissions trading legislation is not in a state for us to be putting it on the law book. It requires additional work if it is to be workable legislation that we do not end up amending over and over again in future years. 
This issue is such a big issue that I was optimistic that we might be able to build enough cross-party support to ensure that instead of the legislation being passed with a very slim majority in the dying days of a Government it would have broad community and parliamentary support. That is why I want to briefly recite the history of the debate on emissions trading. Back in 1999 the then National Cabinet made a decision in principle that the best way for New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change and to the Kyoto Protocol was to put work into the development of an emissions trading scheme. When Labour came to office in 2000 it abandoned that work and for 6 years it went down the road of a carbon tax. When the Government abandoned the carbon tax proposal I wrote to David Parker on behalf of my National colleagues to say that we were open to constructive dialogue on an emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. We did not even receive the courtesy of a response. 
Every action that this Government has taken over the last 2 years has led me to the view that Labour wants National to vote against this legislation. Let me give members a few examples. In respect of the release of the discussion papers National received them after the media did. When it came to the introduction of the original Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preferences) Bill National had absolutely no advance notice of it; however we acted in good faith and voted for its first reading. During the select committee process there was absolutely no attempt by the Government to engage with National. In fact it tabled a thousand amendments to the bill the day before in effect the deliberation on them—the day before we had to vote on those amendments. Furthermore the Government announced a major change to the emissions trading scheme—the delay of the liquid fuels sector—in the middle of the select committee process without any consultation with the select committee at all. Then during the Committee stage the Government just last Tuesday tabled 785 amendments without any consultation and National members were forced to vote on them that day. I put that information to the House to show there has been absolutely no endeavour by the Government to build the sort of cross-party support that is needed for this sort of very major reform. 
National’s key concern about this legislation is that it is being rushed through the House. We have had hundreds and hundreds of amendments. The Minister in charge of the legislation David Parker may dismiss them as minor technical issues but they go to the core of the issue of whether this legislation will work. I can only conclude that Government members in their own minds are trying to gain credit for introducing the biggest most ambitious “all gases all sectors” emissions trading legislation in the world and are passing this legislation in the hope almost that they will not have to deal with its complexity. It is my view that this legislation in its current form represents a hospital pass for whichever party forms the next Government. 
National has six key areas of concern about this legislation. I want to work through them because they are substantive. 
The first is the issue of balance. It is National’s view that this legislation is driven by the Prime Minister’s objective of New Zealand being a world leader on climate change. The problem for Labour is that in its 9 years of Government our emissions have actually gone up faster than those of any other country. This Government has the 38th worst record when it comes to growth in emissions. Far from the 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2005 that it promised emissions have in fact gone up by 20 percent. The difficulty is that every step along the way—whether it has been the carbon tax the animal emissions levy or the negotiated greenhouse gases agreement; whether it has been any one of those measures—the Government has had poor process it has blustered ahead in a gung-ho way and the policies have fallen flat on their faces. The tragedy of this legislation is that the Government has learnt nothing from 9 years of failed climate change policy. National wants a policy that is balanced. If the Government is honest about wanting a world-leading climate change emissions trading scheme it should be honest with the public and say that it means having world-leading petrol prices and world-leading electricity prices. If National is given the chance to amend the legislation we will put in it a more balanced objective of a 50 percent reduction in New Zealand’s emissions by 2050. 
National’s second area of concern about this bill is that it is a massive cash cow for the Government. The Government’s officials have advised that the Government expects to make a profit of $23 billion over the timetable of this legislation. Climate change is not an excuse for Michael Cullen to get his fingers deeper into the pockets of New Zealand businesses and New Zealand families. 
The third area of concern is in respect of our maximising alignment of this scheme with that being developed in Australia. The European Union has an emissions trading scheme covering the 24 countries within it. There may be areas of difference between Australia and New Zealand but it is National’s long-term view that if we are to deal with climate change then surely New Zealand with all our commonality with Australia should be able to more closely align our emissions trading scheme with that of Australia. 
We also have concerns that this legislation will export both jobs and emissions. National is interested only in climate change measures that will make a difference. We are not interested in the provisions of this legislation that will encourage the relocation of some of our heavy energy-intensive industries overseas. It is also our view that this legislation needs to be changed in respect of the way it deals with small and medium enterprises which are discriminated against. We oppose the rigid timetable for the phasing out of industry support and we want a more flexible regime in which the phasing out moves in line with what occurs in international negotiations. 
I also have to express concern about the detailed provisions for forestry. This Government’s dealing with forestry in this legislation has contributed to the greatest level of deforestation since records began in 1951. National members are not satisfied that we have got right the provision of incentives to plant trees which is one of the least-cost ways that New Zealand can rise to this challenge. We have concerns about the issue of flexible land use. We put amendments in the Committee to provide for the offset rule to apply in respect of forestry and we are disappointed that the Government has not seen the merit of that approach which would not have posed any difficulty in terms of actual emissions but would have resulted in a lesser cost to the economy and more efficient use of New Zealand land. 
I also express concerns about the fishing sector which is discriminated against in this legislation. 
In summary National says that New Zealand needs a well-balanced and carefully designed emissions trading scheme but we should not underestimate how important and how difficult that challenge is. The gung-ho approach that we have seen from the Minister and the Government will cost New Zealand dearly and will not address environmental issues. National members will address them. National will amend this important legislation so that we get a price for carbon on 1 January 2010 but the legislation in its current form does not deserve National’s support. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Today marks the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill which will empower the establishment of a comprehensive emissions trading scheme covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases and the third reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. This legislation represents an important step forward for New Zealand. 
National objected to the legislative process undergone by the original bill—the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We have just heard National’s latest recitation of excuses for not supporting it. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which heard public submissions on the bill I find that set of excuses offensive. The claim that the bill was rushed and that inadequate time was given to submissions is just nonsense. 
The facts are these—because what actually happened bears repetition in the record of the House. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received 259 written submissions and heard 96 oral submissions on the bill. Over 58 hours of hearings took place and another 16 hours were spent considering the detailed provisions of the bill after those hearings. The committee heard recommendations and advice from a number of expert groups and officials such as the Emissions Trading Group and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Furthermore prior to the submissions process as we were advised and kept informed by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues more than 100 public meetings and hundreds of stakeholder meetings were held concerning the issues raised by the bill. 
All the matters dealt with in the bill and in the amendments both in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and in the Committee of the whole House have been well rehearsed for over 9 months in the context of the emissions trading scheme. Despite the attempts of the National Party’s climate change deniers to delay the bill it is high time to progress this legislation. I am pleased and proud that we are now doing so. 
I will turn to some of the key changes to the legislation The Finance and Expenditure Committee did deliver in my humble opinion a comprehensive package of improvements to the original legislation but clearly there is always scope for improvement especially in our MMP environment. The key change that I want to mention relates to the provision of additional financial assistance. This includes financial assistance to households to compensate for some of the increased costs they will face under the emissions trading scheme and also the establishment of a household energy fund to encourage investment in energy-efficient products which will reduce both energy consumption and the power bills of households. 
An innovation fund will be established to encourage the deployment of innovative technology that will significantly reduce or avoid emissions from industry. The fishing sector will be compensated with a one-off free allocation of units equal to 50 percent of the impact of the emissions trading scheme on the sector’s liquid fossil fuels. Support will be given to electric buses and trains to offset the increased cost of electricity. These are all matters that the select committee heard extensive evidence about but for one reason or another was not in a position to address. I welcome them especially the complementary measures such as the incentives to deploy energy-efficient technology. 
We heard evidence in the select committee that it is this combination of a well-designed emissions trading scheme and comprehensive measures to promote energy efficiency that will deliver the best long-term gains to New Zealand as far as long-term emissions reductions are concerned. This is a historic day for our Parliament and for our country. We finally enshrine our Kyoto Protocol obligations in law and it is good law. I commend the legislation to the House and to the people of New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 This is a historic day but it is also a very sad day. I say to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that he should be ashamed of himself for progressing this legislation in the way it has been progressed. The Minister sent an invitation to me late last night by email asking me to drinks after the conclusion of debate on this legislation. I will not be attending. I thank the Minister for his invitation but I do not think the legislation is anything that anybody should be celebrating. I say that because there was an opportunity to pass legislation in this House today to give New Zealand an efficient emissions trading scheme and it could have been done on a consensual basis with all major political parties. However because of the Minister this legislation will be passed tonight only because of the support of New Zealand First. I think it is a pity we have not been able to develop a well-balanced emissions trading scheme that would have delivered the important behavioural changes necessary in this country to do our bit for climate change. This one will not work. 
We could have had a general consensus. We certainly could have had the National Party and the Labour Party on the same page because in December 2005 we wrote to the Minister offering our support to work together to develop an emissions trading system that would have been workable and accepted by significant consensus. The response we got from that Minister was no response at all. Mr Parker arrogantly ignored an offer by National to work with the Government to develop a scheme that could have been before Parliament tonight and probably would have had greater than 80 percent acceptance of this House. I say to Mr Parker that that would have given enduring legislation—but no. As a result of the Minister’s attitude this legislation is now seen to be a political football. I say to the Minister that I guarantee to him that this legislation will not be enduring. 
The second point I make to the Minister and the House is about the inclusion of agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that agriculture should be included in a well-balanced emissions trading scheme. As an emitter of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand there is no way agriculture should be exempted but to include agriculture in this emissions trading scheme we had to develop and debate the extent of its inclusion. We had to be accurate about the facts. The first thing I say to the Minister is that on this basis no other emissions trading scheme developed anywhere in the world includes agriculture. 
I will include the Australian Government’s position on this issue. After releasing its green paper the Australian Government said “The Government does not consider that it is practical at this stage to include agriculture emissions in the trading scheme at commencement.” and “Accordingly the Government has decided that the earliest that agriculture should enter the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would be 2015 with a final decision on inclusion or exclusion to be made in 2013 in the light of progress in overcoming practical difficulties and after extensive consultation with the industry.” Is it not a pity that the Labour - New Zealand First Government was not also prepared to take such an attitude? 
It is a common view around New Zealand that agriculture should be included but the difficulty of including it and forcing it into legislation in a dogmatic fashion as this Government has done is that the Government is refusing to acknowledge there are practical difficulties in monitoring measuring and reporting. I say to David Parker and Helen Clark tonight that the best interests of New Zealand should have been paramount. This issue should not have been based around personal agendas and the ticking of a few more boxes for CVs that might be needed in another couple of months. Yes Mr Parker should include agriculture but not to the extent whereby he risks the very viability of New Zealand farming operations and more important of the economy of this country. 
On a number of occasions throughout the select committee process I attempted to get a true indication of costs. The quality of the answers that we received at the Finance and Expenditure Committee were at best evasive and in many cases totally inadequate. The homework had simply not been done to the extent that the Minister himself—David Parker—said in the House last week that there was no evidence that the scheme would have an adverse effect on agriculture. That is what the Minister was reported as saying in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 3 September. He had only to look at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paper entitled  
Projected Impacts of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme at the Farm Level 
 which was released earlier this year. It states explicitly that as expected all farm types will suffer adverse profit effects. It is time the Minister was up front with the facts. 
If this emissions trading scheme had been designed properly its financial aspects and implications for agriculture could well have been recognised but now in a world that is demanding more and more food we will put our production base at risk and we will achieve nothing for global warming. The world will still demand the production of that food which will simply be moved to other countries. The Minister has been totally irresponsible because he knows as well as I do that in New Zealand we have a farming system that is relatively efficient in carbon emission terms. So the Minister will actually be shifting production from New Zealand to countries in South America such as Uruguay that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Those farming systems are far less carbon-efficient than the farming systems he is attempting to replace in New Zealand so the net effect will be that global emissions from methane will actually increase which will do nothing for global warming. The Minister should be aware of that. 
The final point I make concerns the chaotic fashion in which this legislation has been progressed right through the select committee process under the appalling chairmanship of Charles Chauvel and more recently through the House. We have gone in and out of urgency because of a weird agreement with the Greens whereby this legislation was not actually to be considered in urgency. So we have done a little bit of it then we have gone into days of urgency. We came back tonight to do a little more of it only to be told half an hour ago by Dr Cullen that we will be going back into urgency tomorrow morning. I remember when the late Rod Donald used to rile against having any urgency but no with the agreement of the Greens we are in and out of urgency in order for there to be some sort of cosmetic appearance that the emissions trading scheme is getting a fair crack and is not going through under urgency. 
This was meant to be flagship legislation for the Labour Party but it is just shambolic and Mr Parker has done his party no good at all in entering into such a shambolic process. But the more important thing is that when this legislation is passed later on tonight with the support of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his team it will not be enduring regardless of the election result. I say to Mr Parker that this legislation will not endure. It will be back before the House before too much longer because it will not take long for the people of New Zealand to realise that the legislation will bind the economy cause the standard of living of all New Zealanders to decline and achieve very little—or nothing at all—for climate change. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 We now head towards the end of the third reading of this hugely important legislation and the passage of what I would go as far to suggest is probably the most important legislation to go through this House since the GST legislation was passed in the mid-1980s. It will have a very profound impact on all households in New Zealand and on all businesses. It has been estimated for example that households face in just their electricity prices an increase of 20 percent at a carbon unit price of $25 but recently prices have gone higher than that and estimates suggest that the price of carbon could go up to $100 a tonne by 2012. That could increase the price of electricity by anything up to 40 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: Rubbish! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I hear the Minister saying “rubbish” but these are not my figures. These figures have been estimated by other people trying to get a grip on what is likely to happen to households’ electricity prices. Businesses will all face significantly higher costs of production. Food which has already gone up in price partly because of the biofuels interest and production will of course go up very significantly again. One of the worries is whether the public of New Zealand understands this. Does the public understand what we are passing through this House right now? And although there has not been a lot of research on this it is interesting to note a Stuff poll that came out just recently—one should not give too much credence to those but it did have almost 7000 votes recorded on it. Of those 7000 votes 12.4 percent said they did understand what the emissions trading scheme legislation was all about 62 percent said they did not understand what it was about and a further 25 percent did not even know what the question was about—they did not know what the scheme law was actually about. A total of 87 percent of people did not even understand what on earth we are doing with this legislation. That is a worry when it will have such a profound impact on their lives. 
My colleague David Carter has already expressed concerns about the fact that this legislation leads the world in involving all sectors. We want to make it very clear that National supports an emissions trading scheme—we have always made that clear. But our concern is that this legislation is getting out so far ahead of the rest of the world and ignoring so much representation from New Zealand businesses that drive our economy—ignoring what they are saying this will do to them. 
One of the reasons why it is so unwise to get out so far ahead from the rest of the world is that technically it is very difficult to do what this legislation will require of New Zealand businesses. Let me take the technical aspects of it with which I am most familiar—those relating to agriculture. One of the reasons it is unwise to get out ahead of the rest of the world bringing agriculture into such legislation is that one cannot measure the special emissions from agriculture. Sure agriculture’s energy utilisation and all that will be included in the scheme and no one argues about that—the use of electricity the use of energy in agriculture of course that is the same as for anyone else. But agriculture has special emissions like methane and nitrous oxide. One of the challenges with this kind of legislation—and I want members of this House to understand this—is that the scheme does not propose that one measure methane emissions from ruminant animals because one cannot easily do it. It is technically extraordinarily difficult to do it and the Minister acknowledges that. 
So what we do with this legislation is that we estimate the emissions and if that could be done reasonably well that would be fine. But we need to understand how the Government proposes to estimate those emissions. The way it proposes to do this is to take the number of relevant ruminant animals—sheep beef and dairy cattle and deer—apply the feed intake measured in terms of dry matter intake per head of those animals and then apply a conversion rate from that dry matter intake to methane. In the case of cattle for example that methane conversion rate is 6.5 percent of gross energy intake. 
That is how it is proposed to estimate the methane emissions; it is by the number of animals multiplied by the feed intake—the dry matter intake per animal—and then the methane conversion factor is applied. The next problem is that one cannot measure the dry matter intake of our ruminant animals in New Zealand. It cannot be done here. It could perhaps be done in some countries where they feed animals in stalls but in New Zealand we cannot do it. Can you imagine trying to measure the actual dry matter intake of pasture of 10000 sheep grazing out on a farm or 1000 dairy cows grazing on a farm somewhere? How does one actually measure that dry matter intake? It cannot be done. So what does the Government propose? It says that one estimates how much dry matter intake there is under this legislation by looking at how much is produced. So we take the number of dairy cows we have got and look at the amount of milk or meat that has been produced. From that amount of milk meat or wool that has been produced one works back to how much dry matter must have been consumed. That is how one works out how much dry matter animals must have consumed. From the amount of milk produced and the number of animals one can work out in theory how much dry matter has been consumed. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Prior to the dinner break I was emphasising the concerns we have about Labour getting ahead of the rest of the world by passing this legislation. I was focusing particularly on the problems the legislation will cause for the agricultural sector in terms of the measurement of methane emissions that are a very large part of the problem for New Zealand. The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues David Parker acknowledged that we cannot at the moment measure methane emissions so the Labour-led Government’s proposal is that they should be estimated. The emissions are estimated by calculating the number of animals and their dry matter intake then applying a conversion factor for methane from the gross energy intake. But as I was pointing out a further problem is that we cannot measure dry matter intake either—it has to be estimated as well. So we now have two estimations. 
And the problem with that is that it is proposed that dry matter intake be estimated from what sheep cattle and deer actually produce—so from the amount of milk meat or wool they produce we would work back and estimate the amount of dry matter they had consumed. But I want the Labour Green and New Zealand First members who are supporting this bill to understand that there will be a variable percentage of digestibility in the dry matter intake an animal consumes depending on the quality of feed the farmer uses. The calculation does not recognise that. 
What is more once that feed is digested an animal of high genetic worth will utilise the metabolisable energy differently. An animal that has produced more milk or meat for argument’s sake could be an animal of higher genetic worth to which a farmer has also fed a more digestible diet. So we could have a situation whereby less methane has been released into the atmosphere for the production of meat or milk. But the system will not allow for that. The system will punish the efficient farmer and the animals of high genetic worth that produce more for a given amount of metabolisable energy being utilised. It will punish the farmer who feeds the more highly digestible diet. So we will see the exact opposite from what is intended. Because intake is based on production it will punish those who feed higher-quality diets and have animals of higher genetic worth. That is the first problem. 
The second problem is that because all the figures are estimated the variability—the error within those estimates—is so high. I am running out of time but for example a farmer who has been estimated to produce 1000 units of methane and therefore should purchase carbon units to cover those may well have produced 500 rather than 1000 and the accuracy of those two figures would be equally likely. We could not be certain that the figure of 1000 was any more accurate than the figure of 500 yet we would expect the farmer to purchase the carbon units to cover those 1000 units. That is simply unworkable. I predict that if this scheme goes ahead as it is then unless we get the scientific breakthroughs—and this is where the research effort should go—there will be civil disobedience. Labour is sacrificing New Zealand’s future to its political ends and that is bad for New Zealand. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Tonight we pass legislation that is a small step towards getting New Zealand’s carbon emissions under control. I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues David Parker who has pursued this incredibly complex legislation and set of issues for 3 years. Although the Greens do not agree with everything about the design of this bill I really believe that Mr Parker has done everything he can in the current political environment to take this first step towards reducing our emissions. 
The important thing is not to get the idea that because we now have an emissions trading scheme climate change is fixed. Price has only ever been part of the story and whether it be a carbon charge or an emissions trading scheme there is a great deal else to do. This scheme does not even cap our emissions in New Zealand. It allows us to grow our emissions as much as we like as long as we pay others to limit theirs. Although that may be all right in the short term we cannot expect the rest of the world to compensate for our rising emissions forever. 
So what do we need to do now in climate change policy to build on the emissions trading scheme and to make sure we have genuine emission reductions? First the Greens believe that we need to sign up to the international target—about which there is increasing consensus—of limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees. People argue about whether that equates to 450 parts per million in the atmosphere or somewhat more. Hansen one of the most prestigious climate scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) says that it equates to 350 parts and we are already past that. At any rate we need to sign up to that target. Then we need to adopt real targets within New Zealand. 
The most important target of all is the date at which our total emissions level off and start to fall. That turn-round point is incredibly important. The later it happens the more ground we will have to make up in the future. I believe we should set a date gazette it—under the new provisions in the legislation that the Greens have negotiated targets will be gazetted—set a reduction path to 2050 and gazette that too. Then we will all know where we are heading and we can look at the mechanisms to achieve it. 
In terms of international negotiations we need to spend less time on special deals for New Zealand and more time on strengthening the agreement finding ways to get the United States and the larger developing countries into it and finding ways to include soil carbon which offers one of the biggest opportunities for carbon sequestration in the future but is not counted at the moment. We need to use our influence internationally to verify properly the environmental integrity of the units used to meet Kyoto objectives. The Greens are proud that the environmental integrity around Russian hot air is improved—it is now in the bill—but we need to turn our attention to some of the Clean Development Mechanism credits which are questionable to say the least. I know that the Kyoto partners are trying to deal with that issue and we need to support that. 
What do we need to do at home? We know that price will not do it all despite advice from Treasury and the beliefs of many gung-ho industry people and we know that because if price would do it all then we would not still be ignoring hundreds of millions of dollars of cost-effective energy savings out in the community. In fact if price would do it all then our economy would be perfectly energy efficient at the current prices—but it is not. We need to intervene in a number of ways to capture those savings and reduce our emissions. 
In terms of transport the obvious easy first thing to do is to improve the efficiency of vehicles coming over the border. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy which Cabinet approved and was released a year ago provides for vehicle fuel efficiency standards for vehicles coming into the country. There is so far no legislation to provide for that and that I think is an immediate urgency. We need to invest in rail public transport and safe cycling because a tax on petrol will not encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport if public transport is full and people cannot get on it at rush hour. We need much greater provision of services in that respect. 
We need better urban planning so that it is not so far to travel from home to work and school. We need to create a better investment environment for renewable energy. Ernst and Young has just released yesterday or today a report that is astonishing. New Zealand has the best resources in the world for renewable energy but we are languishing at 20th place in the world in terms of our attractiveness as a country for renewable energy investment. Urgently we need to investigate why that is and do something about it. One reason seems to be that there are no feed-in tariffs here and that is something we need to consider for the future. Also as long as we are wobbling around as to whether there will be new gas-fired power stations we are discouraging investment in energy efficiency because gas-fired power stations will always crowd renewable investments out of the market. 
We know that heaps of energy efficiency is available in the economy. The Electricity Commission has identified real reductions and we need to access those. The $1 billion green homes fund will leverage real reductions in energy in households as well as improve health. We know that households use about a third of our electricity. Households could have a water heating standard that said people could not heat their water any longer by just sticking an inefficient coil in a tank but would need to have one of the more efficient technologies: solar hot water heat pumps wood-fire wet-back—there are a number of them; we will get there one day. 
Then the next step will be zero-energy homes—homes that are initially so efficient they do not use much energy and then homes that generate their own energy and feed it back into the grid. Grid-connected photovoltaics is the technology that is coming along down the track. It does not make sense to use that until we have homes insulated and up to scratch but it will be the next step. The UK already has zero-energy homes in its building standards. Its building code provides for a transition towards zero-energy homes. 
The rest of the programme needs more research and development for the technologies that are not quite here yet particularly methane and nitrous oxide reductions in agriculture marine energy—and we have made a start with wave and tidal power—and second generation biofuels. Those biofuels—from waste wood and from algae growing on sewage—are extraordinarily important and they will help us as oil becomes increasingly expensive. I started this long process over the legislation by saying that it needed to be made more effective more fair and more urgent. In our negotiations with the Government the Greens have achieved progress against some of those criteria but not all of them. 
One outstanding issue of fairness which arose for us too late to be incorporated into our negotiations concerns the issue of iwi who have received in Treaty settlements forests whose value has been seriously eroded by this scheme. We were under the impression through our negotiations that those iwi had reached agreement with the Government and were happy with the conclusions. They are not and it is disappointing that it was not possible to do something today in Part 1 to provide for that in the legislation. Nevertheless there is a process under way at the moment to consider the extent of that loss and whether iwi were given all the information they should have been given at the time they purchased those forests in good faith. We expect the Government to operate in good faith when that survey is reported and to restore value to Ngai Tahu and other iwi who have lost value if their cases are proven. We will be watching particularly to see how that process delivers. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me assure members that New Zealand First supports this legislation and let me assure the Minister that we are supporting it in the right spirit. But having said that I have to say that New Zealand First does have some concerns. I will explain. 
Our concerns first started when we learnt that New Zealand produces 0.2 percent of the greenhouse gases in the world—0.2 percent. We have 0.065 percent of the world’s population but we produce 0.2 percent of its greenhouse gases. Then we learnt that half of that 0.2 percent comes from animals—from agriculture if you will. So we had to ask what effect that would have on the weather what effect that would have on global warming and what effect that would have on climate change. I think that many of us if not all of us thought that it would be fairly negligible. But these were some tough questions we had to ask ourselves. Then we learnt that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme embraces only carbon dioxide. It does not include methane nitrous oxide or any other greenhouse gas; it simply revolves around carbon dioxide. So the question became: well why do we need an emissions trading scheme or at least why should we—we being New Zealand—be first off the block? Why should we be a world leader in this? Why should we be ahead of Australia in introducing such a scheme? To get those answers all seven of us genuinely listened to the debate. We opened our minds and our ears and listened intently to the debate. 
One thing became clear: there was going to be an emissions trading scheme whether it was with Labour the Government or whether it was with National currently the Opposition—which thinks it will be the Government in a relatively few weeks’ time. So we knew there was going to be a scheme. The question New Zealand First itself had to address was: would we be best to stand outside that scheme and let Labour do what it wanted to do or in a few weeks’ time if National had the Government benches to let National do what it wanted to do and have us stay outside that. But we thought that the issue was bigger than that. We knew that the scheme would have an adverse impact on the people we represent—the elderly in particular and the vulnerable who are the people we have genuine concerns for—so we started a dialogue with Labour people to see what we could achieve with a scheme that addressed the concerns of those people we represented. It was obvious to us that a scheme was coming and we wanted to soften the blow on the people we have real concerns about—the low-paid the elderly and the people who really need some help in this society. As I say at that point we opened discussions with the Government. 
We are in support of the deals that have been struck between New Zealand First and the Government and indeed of those between the Greens and the Government. That is not to say that we are entirely happy. We looked at the option as I said of holding off and waiting for the National Party’s scheme at a later date but National itself ruled that out. As much as we detest somebody coming along with a tape-recorder to secretly record messages we learnt a valuable lesson then—that is that the National Party says one thing but is prepared to do another. I will not go into the details of those tape recordings but when we hear senior members saying that sometimes they have to swallow dead fish to get what they want we know there is a secret agenda. We do not agree with the way in which those discussions were tape-recorded; I want to make that quite clear. But I tell members that they were caught on tape. And as if that were not enough we know what they did to the Hon Maurice Williamson and we learnt a lot from the way in which those people treated him. I am the transport spokesperson for New Zealand First as members well know and I do not agree with the Hon Maurice Williamson in some of the things he advocates for transport. I know his views on tolls and on public-private partnerships. He echoed those views on TV and he got his hand slapped—or more than that—by his leader publicly for saying what he believed and as far as we understand it from the National Party what the National Party was supportive of. He was treated— 
Sue Moroney 
: Dare to say it out loud. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes he was treated—I cannot think of a polite word— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Shamelessly. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes that is it—thank you. I thank the member. That is a polite word; I could not think of one. 
We learnt a lot and the question we asked ourselves in New Zealand First was whether we could wait and trust that crowd. Could we wait if that crowd got the Government benches and trust them? The answer was a firm “No”. We wanted the best deal we could get for households for elderly folk for families for whomever. We achieved that deal by dealing with the Minister and the Labour Party. We do not think it is the best deal but at least we have established one thing—the precedent that must be considered in the future. I challenge the National Party—I have listened to its speakers—to say whether they will rescind it should they get the Government benches. Will they rescind the— 
Eric Roy 
: Which part? 
PETER BROWN 
: The financial assistance to households and families—will the member tell us now? He is saying no but they would not have put it in. I guarantee they would not have put it in. I have listened to National speakers tonight and I say that National would not have made any concessions at all to the elderly and whomever. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a considerable amount of money. That was a very important factor in New Zealand coming together as a team to support this legislation. The Minister is well aware of this. I am not telling the Minister anything that he is not aware of it. 
New Zealand First will support this legislation tonight. We will support the third readings. We say to the Minister with due respect that we think this is a move in the right direction. It is not completely right. There will need to be some amendments. I will not go as far as David Carter did when he said that this is not enduring legislation and give the impression that it will fall over in a matter of months. I do not believe that. But I believe it will have to be addressed on a number of occasions to get it right and I know that before agriculture comes in before transport comes in there will be quite some discussion. It will have to go through Parliament and get the seal of approval. In essence New Zealand First is supporting this legislation because it has the framework there. It will be modified. It will need to be modified in our view but it is a move in the right direction and it has the support of New Zealand First. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Hone Harawira who has deferred his speech to allow me the opportunity to speak. 
I listened to a very confused contribution from Mr Brown of New Zealand First. He said that New Zealand First is supporting the legislation but he is not sure why and that it will need to be modified. 
Peter Brown 
: I didn’t say that. The member will need to listen from time to time. 
ERIC ROY 
: I listened carefully and the member said that it will need to be modified. 
I want to state something again. Out there if one dares to criticise anything to do with climate change one is termed a naysayer—that is the call. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: I am not a naysayer; I certainly believe that the climate is changing. I believe that there is a natural cycle and I believe that human activity is chasing it along making it go faster than would occur naturally. I am concerned about that and I have made several speeches on it. I do not want to be accused of being a naysayer. In that respect I should say that I think this legislation has one thing right: there needs to be a market for carbon driven by market forces and that is essentially what this legislation does. But there is a list of things about it that give me some angst and some concern and that is why National is not supporting the legislation. 
The first concern is the process. Yes a very committed group of officials worked for a considerable time to work up a bill to come before the House. We were presented with a tome of I do not know how many pages—several hundred. It is one of the bigger bills to go through Parliament but there is nothing wrong with that; it just shows that this matter is complex. It requires proper scrutiny and proper assessment and we need to make every endeavour to get it right. Well how can National members sign off legislation on something as important as this when in the Committee stage 780-odd amendments were dumped on us before we even had a chance to read them? So my first concern is the process of this legislation which will imprint itself on the business culture of New Zealand and on the quality of the impression that we give internationally. We are a world leader on many aspects of this legislation but National members are not able to sign it off. 
That is the first point. It raises three other questions. Will it work? Is it practical? What is the cost implication? Those are the issues I want to address to some degree in the third readings of this legislation. 
I have said that it is important we have a market price and I come to the reason why we need to have it. I have mentioned that I believe that human activity is increasing the rate of climate change. But whether or not one is a naysayer if New Zealand as an exporter of products to the highest-priced markets in the world does nothing we will be caught by consumer resistance to buying products from countries that do not conform. Right at this time all three main food retailers in the UK are embracing a greenhouse-gas branding process for their food products. Tesco is reputed to be spending between £400 million and £500 million on branding 110000 different food items. Is it doing that because it wants to save the planet? I would suggest that it is not. Tesco is doing that because it wants to earn another pound. That tells me we have no alternative but to respond. 
We come to the question of whether the legislation will work. We could introduce something that is a placebo and to a degree this legislation is a placebo because we have not given it enough scrutiny to be sure it will work. We have an emissions trading scheme and it is in legislation so we can hold up our hand and say that yes we are responding. But there is a little issue that concerns me and in the Committee stage I raised quite a bit of detail about it. You see the measurement is not of where we sit in the world; the measurement is being done on the basis of per head of population—not on the basis of world’s best-practice. If we have a higher agricultural profile per head of population than other countries then we show up as in our case 50 percent. If we have one aluminium smelter per 4 million people then our aluminium profile is higher. China has 23 aluminium smelters but its profile for that stuff will be much lower. And China is a category 3 country so it will not count for a long long time. 
The issue is that if this legislation does not embrace world’s best-practice it will drive industry it will drive agriculture and it will drive dirty industry in particular to countries where the system of estimation of their carbon imprint is lower. The higher the population of a country the more dirty stuff can be crowded into it. Well this problem is a global problem and quite simply that approach is nonsense and to a large extent it is one of the dangers of this legislation. Let me give an illustration. Rio Tinto has very very carefully considered its responsibilities in this matter. Initially we were called to get back to 1990 emission levels and I think—and someone can correct me—Rio Tinto is the only significant energy emitter in this country that has got itself back to 1990 levels. [ 
Interruption 
] There is another one; I thank the member for that. 
Hon Member 
: They’re actually below 1990 levels. 
ERIC ROY 
: I think the aluminium smelter is too; I think Rio Tinto is as well. We hold up our hands in horror because when we measure the smelter’s emissions against our population it looks bad and because for every tonne of aluminium produced the smelter releases 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases. We can get carried away about that but if the plant at Tiwai was to close down Rio Tinto would most probably move its production to a country such as China which to my understanding now has 23 aluminium smelters. The average greenhouse gas emission of those 23 smelters is I am told 7.9 tonnes for every tonne of aluminium produced. So how clever is it to introduce a system that has the tendency and the propensity to drive those sorts of industries from New Zealand where they use world’s best-practice to a place where environmental consideration is not worth the paper it is written on? 
Hon David Parker 
: But it won’t. 
ERIC ROY 
: I am pleased the Minister is seriously confident about that because I am not. 
Let me raise another matter that this legislation does not address. Various colleagues have made this point. We have heard about the chainsaw massacre of trees. Sequestration is important. By any measurement we have gone seriously backwards because of the way in which we have embraced our response to the Kyoto Protocol and this legislation largely does not correct that. It does not allow tradability of forestry within New Zealand in order to have the best use made of land. Significant catchment areas in the North Island are crying out for forestation yet we cannot transfer that land to what would be best-practice or even go for two-for-one use of it. I am sure we could wear that—putting 2 hectares of eroding land back into trees. 
Then there is the cost factor and I want to make this point. When we impose a cost it is always the producer who picks it up. It cannot go anywhere else. Everybody else is cost-plus all the way through—in the servicing of it and in the transport of it—so the cost comes back to the producer. This House might not have noticed but large sectors of the agricultural industry are not in a position to absorb any more costs into their production systems—none whatsoever. There is a paucity of information on how the producers can mitigate those costs. I would say that even putting a date on this system embracing agriculture is something National members were seriously concerned about. 
We need to have all those answers before we are prepared to support this legislation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Earlier today the Maori Party tabled three amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that spoke to the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Treaty settlements. We sought to insert under clause 28 a new section that made reference to any iwi that received redress under any Treaty of Waitangi settlement. Under clause 43 we sought to insert a new section referring to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and asserting the need to maintain the integrity and value to iwi of Treaty of Waitangi settlements and to have redress under those settlements. Finally we sought to insert in clause 68(4) the words “the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1988”. We sought leave to table those three amendments because they were a simple but intelligent contribution to matters of fundamental importance to our nation. Today the House chose to vote down those Treaty amendments and those parties and those politicians who voted them down must live with that decision and with the shame that attaches to them for their part in doing that. 
The Maori Party has always taken the view that every issue is an opportunity to recognise and honour the Treaty in word and in deed. So it is with emissions trading as it is with everything else. Treaty settlements are the instruments of national reconciliation. They are opportunities for Governments to begin to redress the wrongs of the past so that we can build a pathway forward together. Yet in this as in far too many cases decisions have been taken to undermine to oppose and to threaten that very path to reconciliation. This legislation affects all Maori because it fails to pay due regard to the place of the Treaty in our nation and it breaches the good faith in which five Treaty settlements have been reached—settlements that the people believed to be fair and based on principle settlements negotiated and accepted by the people whose ancestors carried the fight for justice across generations settlements that should have been treated as solemn pacts and settlements that should be respected and protected by the Governments of the day. 
Today Ngai Tahu have told us that this emissions trading legislation represents the most direct assault on the integrity finality durability and purpose of Treaty settlements since Treaty settlements began. This legislation is an attack on the integrity of Treaty settlements because it is an attack on the so-called good faith the Crown said that it had in entering into Treaty settlement negotiations. Lack of good faith as every iwi can tell us has deprived iwi of the opportunity to develop and has resulted in generations of iwi existing in poverty. Our Supplementary Order Paper was not just about Ngai Tahu and the massive loss they will be forced to suffer because of this bill but it was also about other iwi in a similar position who will also suffer loss because of a lack of good faith by the Crown. 
The emissions trading legislation is also an attack on the finality of Treaty settlements because it will wipe millions of dollars off the value of those settlements so Ngai Tahu’s situation clearly highlights the dangers of this bill for Maori. In 2001 Ngai Tahu relied on the Crown’s promise when it purchased forestry lands at market value only to have that promise withdrawn when the Government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol less than 12 months later—an act of betrayal that will lead to a loss of millions of dollars from the value of the Ngai Tahu settlement. That loss comes directly as a result of the non-disclosure by the Crown at the time Ngai Tahu were encouraged to purchase forestry lands and the fact that the Crown must have known in 2001 that the Kyoto Protocol it would sign up to in 2002 would lead to a significant destruction of the value of Ngai Tahu’s forestry purchases. Had Ngai Tahu known of Kyoto’s implications they would undoubtedly have made different decisions to ensure the future prosperity of their settlements or as Ngai Tahu themselves would say: “Ma tatou a mo nga uri a muri ake nei.”—“For us and our children after us.” Any erosion of good faith inevitably impacts on the durability of the agreements reached between Maori and the Crown—the first in 1840 and the second in the Treaty settlements—and in this situation the Government’s failure to disclose its lack of good faith in its Treaty settlement negotiations actually prevented Ngai Tahu from making choices otherwise available and created the grounds for a second claim of a Treaty breach. 
Yesterday Te Ohu Kaimoana added its voice to this issue noting that the durability of iwi and pan-iwi settlements is vital to sound working relationships between Maori and the Crown. Chief executive officer Peter Douglas commenting on the concerns of both Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa regarding emissions trading summed it up when he said: “If the early wave of settlements are considered by their people to be at risk then the certainty and finality of all Treaty settlements is put at risk as well.” The settlements affected here are those from the early wave of settlements and the risks that have occurred have taken place within but 10 years of their conclusion. Ten years is too short a time within the life of a so-called perpetual agreement between Maori and Crown for such risks to have emerged. 
I want to make it quite clear that we knew that the amendments we sought to table would not cure the loss—they would not remedy the lack—of good faith today. All we wanted to do was to allow for these issues to be reconsidered by this House. As Te Ohu Kaimoana said yesterday: “We do not expect that Treaty settlements should have special immunity from the consequences of change but we do expect the Crown to engage in good faith with iwi over changes which will affect the nature of those settlements.” This is not just about Ngai Tahu having to deal with a change in policy; it is about their being misled and making decisions on the basis of poor information provided by a Government that knew otherwise. I hate to say it but I am not surprised by these actions for they simply replicate Crown behaviour against Maori over the last 170 years—behaviour that has been in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and behaviour that demonstrates the Crown’s failure to honour its obligations to its Treaty partner. 
Today’s amendments were a modest and reasonable approach by iwi to national international and environmental considerations. Today’s amendments were an opportunity to consider the Ngai Tahu situation in the context of the national interest. Today’s amendments simply asked that in terms of the settlement process and the integrity of the emissions trading scheme Parliament should have the option to reconsider its views. But it seems that that is not to be the case—that this House is not yet ready to deal honestly with Maori issues and that this House is not genuinely committed to the reconciliation of our nation. 
Although we are on different sides of the debate on this bill I again thank the Green Party for their continued support of the Treaty. But in closing I again say how absolutely devastated we are to see that Labour’s Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mita Ririnui Mahara Okeroa Dover Samuels and Dave Hereora have again chosen party loyalty over the Treaty and again chosen to vote down the Treaty when they had a chance to finally make a positive stand. That is a point that Maori people all over the country will remember when we go to the polls in a few weeks’ time. Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and take a short call in this historic debate the third reading of this legislation and it will be a historic moment when it is passed. I think the debate is actually quite enlightening this evening because here we see one of the many defining issues between Labour and National. On this side Labour is prepared to take leadership and to actually have a vision to go forward. On the other side the National members are wringing their hands over not having 100 percent certainty over everything that moves and therefore they are not prepared to move forward because they cannot have that absolute certainty. This demonstrates the leadership being displayed on this side of the House and the absolute lack of vision over there—the absolute lack of vision—and the lack of commitment to moving forward. Any excuse will do to stand still with National. Well that is not the vision that Labour has and I am very pleased to support this legislation at the third reading. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to take what I hope will be a shortish call on the legislation and to speak against it. One of the things that prompted me to take a call was listening to the appalling effort of the deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party Peter Brown. In many ways the contribution of that member to this third reading debate sums up exactly what is going wrong with this legislation. He had nothing at all to contribute in terms of the merit of the legislation or what it will mean for New Zealand and he chose instead to indulge in a diatribe against the National Party. I have one little bit of advice for Mr Brown. It must be terrible for the member sitting here in the House trying to keep his head down and freezing every time his cellphone rings. He must be wondering whether the call is from Serious Fraud Office employees to say that they want to talk to him and that they suggest he bring a lawyer. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member will come back to the legislation. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
When National members spoke during the Committee stage member after member myself included asked a question that the Minister never ever answered: why the rush? What is the hurry? This is the most fundamental profound change to New Zealand’s economic system to be legislated through this House in some 20 years. What are we doing? We are not sitting back and reflecting on its significance. We are not examining the implications for New Zealand in any detail at all. What we are doing is rushing this legislation headlong through this House and Opposition members cannot understand why. But one does begin to get a little bit of an insight when one listens to what— 
Peter Brown 
: Will the member take a question? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I think Mr Brown’s cellphone is ringing. He had better answer it. 
I listened to the previous contribution from the junior Government whip Sue Moroney. She talked about this legislation being a defining issue between the discredited socialists who sit over there and the National Party— 
Sue Moroney 
: One of the many because there are plenty! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Yeah right! I guess there is some distinction between the two major parties in respect of this legislation. The first point of distinction and this will not be lost on the people of New Zealand is that on the Opposition side of the Chamber we do things properly. The Government is not doing this properly. It is bent on driving this legislation through the House. Why? I repeat the question to members opposite: what is the hurry? Where is the analysis from Government members? Where is the understanding of the potential harm to the New Zealand economy that this legislation as it is currently structured will cause? 
The Government—known now as the “Clark-Peters Coalition”—is showing no respect for and no understanding of the New Zealand business community and even less respect for the agricultural sector. Surely the Government and its coalition mates would at least show sufficient respect for the agricultural sector the backbone of this country for generations and take a little bit more time—and less rush—to consider the legislation and debate it in the House. How can one drop on this House as happened last week some of the biggest legislation that I have seen in my short time here— 
Chris Tremain 
: And the most complex. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: —and certainly as my colleague Mr Tremain says the most complex—then throw in 785 amendments and expect New Zealand to take this House seriously as we rush it through? This legislation is being rushed through because that Government’s coalition partner New Zealand First part of the Clark-Peters cabal that has run this country for 9 years wants to get it through. We did not receive any explanation in the Committee stage and I have heard nothing in this third reading debate as to why the New Zealand First Party is so keen to help that crowd to get this badly structured legislation through the House before it rises. 
When the country goes to the general election in I suspect fewer than 2 months’ time the electorate will make a judgment. But there is still time for this House to step back and acknowledge the validity of what this side is saying which is that the legislation is rushed that it is far too complex to be given such a short time for consideration and that it is full of 785 amendments. There is still time for this House to vote this legislation down which would give us time later on to introduce considered and constructive legislation that will not rip the heart out of the New Zealand agricultural sector and therefore our economic system. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 For the benefit of members of the public who do not know this I say the member who has just resumed his seat is called Allan Peachey. He is a National member of Parliament from somewhere who thinks we are rushing through this legislation. He should know that this legislation is a result of a discussion document a result of hundreds of public meetings up and down New Zealand and a result of a select committee process where 259 written submissions were made and 161 oral submissions were heard and where there were over 58 hours of hearing time. There was a landowners’ forum there was a Maori leaders’ group and there were four technical advisory groups all inputting into this legislation. That was a do-nothing speech from a do-nothing member of Parliament. 
I am very proud to be supporting the passage of this legislation and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in steering it through the parliamentary process. I particularly acknowledge the leadership of the Minister responsible for the legislation David Parker. I also acknowledge the integrity and hard work demonstrated by the other parties in their discussions about their support for and commitment to this legislation. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we face. It is important that New Zealand continues to play a leadership role and shoulders our share of the responsibility for it. This legislation completes that process. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry there have been 12 speeches and National has had six of them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bills read a third time. 
Public Transport Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 September. 
Part 2 Regulation of public transport 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 13 to omit subclause (1)(h) is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 14A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: An amendment to clause 15 has been ruled out of order as being subject to a financial veto. That was an amendment by the Hon Maurice Williamson. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 15A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (a) the following subparagraph: 
(ix)the purpose in section 3;. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (a)(viii). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(2)Nothing in this section limits section 12(1). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “the” and substitute “an”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (3) after “commercial public transport service” “or from a prospective operator of a commercial public transport service under subsection (1)(d) or (2)(g)”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18 to omit and substitute subclause (2) is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (6)(a) after “consultation” “under section 16(2)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18A be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (3) and (4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18A be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (7) and (8) and substitute the following subclause: 
(7)If the Agency discloses information it receives under subsection (1) to those persons specified in subsection 4(a) it must require those persons (in a written enforceable form): 
to keep any information they receive confidential; and 
not to disclose the information to any other party other than the Agency. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) before “The following written” “Subject to section 12(1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(4)A control may incorporate material by reference only if referencing to or incorporating in whole or in part with or without modification a standard requirement or rule (related to the subject matter of the control) of— 
(a)Standards New Zealand; or 
(b)a comparable organisation in a jurisdiction other than New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 20 be agreed to: 
to add after “effect” “and if the amendment or replacement material is of the same general character as the material amended or replaced”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following paragraphs: 
(c)allow a reasonable opportunity for persons to comment on the proposal to incorporate the proposed material by reference; and 
(d)consider any comments those persons make. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2)(aa). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) the following paragraph: 
(da)passenger capacity of the public transport service; and. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(aa). 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following paragraph: 
(da)proposed passenger capacity; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 29 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraphs: 
(aa)that has the clear demonstrable purpose of disrupting the contracting of public transport services; or 
(ab) that will have a substantial material adverse effect on the sustainability of the funding of contracted public transport services; or. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 29 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 30 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(b) after “person or by” “a”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(aa). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) the following paragraph: 
(da)the passenger capacity;. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(b) and substitute the following paragraphs: 
(aa)that has the clear demonstrable purpose of disrupting the contracting of public transport services; or 
(ab)that will have a substantial material adverse effect on the sustainability of the funding of contracted public transport services; or. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(d)(iii) “resolves to tender” and substitute “calls for tenders for”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 33 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(b) after “person or by” “a”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after “council” “reasonably”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(b) before “conduct” “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(c) before “inspect” “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1)(d) before “inspect” “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (4) after “he or she is” “reasonably”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause: 
(4A)An authorised person must not in carrying out monitoring under subsection (1) or exercising the power in subsection (4) disrupt the operation of the commercial public transport service. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (5)(a) after “mode of transport” “where required”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
The amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (5)(a) after “he or she is” “reasonably”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to suggest or move a motion that we take the principal clauses as one vote rather than do all these little subclauses. New Zealand First is totally supportive of the Hon Maurice Williamson’s amendments but I think it is quite obvious that the voting has been lost now. If suddenly everybody changed their mind and voted for the amendments it would be a mishmash bill. All these subparagraphs and subclauses interrelate so I would like to suggest or move a motion that we take the clauses as one vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No if you could proceed by seeking leave for that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Thank you Mr Brown. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(b)(i) “90” and substitute “180”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(b)(ii) “90” and substitute “180”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2)(a) “90” and substitute “180”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2)(b) “90” and substitute “180”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after “failed” “to a material extent”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2)(a)(i) after “transport service” “materially;”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (4)(a)(i) after “comply” “materially”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (5) after “comply” “materially”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (6)(a)(i) after “failing to comply” “materially”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38A be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (7) after “in person or by” “a”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment to clause 38A(9) in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson is ruled out of order as it is the same in substance as a previous amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 39A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40A be agreed to: 
to add the following subclauses: 
(2)An operator of an existing service may appeal against any decision of a regional council under section 13 to require that operator to provide information to the regional council on the grounds that the regional council has not complied with section 13 in requiring that information. 
(3)Nothing in this section affects the operator’s right to apply in accordance with the law for judicial review of the validity of a control. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 44AA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after “a control” “or a decision under section 13”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “15” and substitute “20”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after “section 11(1)(b)” “or the decision under section 13”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 40B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 40B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (3) the following paragraph: 
(aa)order compensation to be paid to the operator in respect of application of the control to the operator;. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(3)(b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (3)(b) after “the control” “in the case of an appeal under section 40A(1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(3)(c) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit “material” and substitute “potential” in clause 40B(3)(c) is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following paragraph: 
(d)Overturn or modify the regional council’s decision or require the regional council to reconsider that decision subject to directions of the Court in the case of an appeal section 39A(2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B(4) is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(5) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading “to continue in force” and substitute “suspended”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) after “section” “40A;”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “continues in force” and substitute “is suspended”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “and no person is excused from complying with a provision of this Act on the grounds that an appeal is pending”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “may suspend” and substitute “or as the case may be the Environment Court determine that”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after “decision” “continues in force”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “not” and substitute “otherwise”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading “on questions of law”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause: 
(1A)Despite section 299 of the Resource Management Act only an operator of a service who lodged an appeal under section 40A or the regional council whose decision was subject to the appeal under section 40A who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Environment Court on any ground may appeal to the High Court. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to subclause (2) of clause 44 is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 45 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after “parties” “eligible”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 45 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “an”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to 47 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) before “varies” “materially”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “financial records relating to revenue or expenditure;”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to insert in the chapeau after “regulations” “for any matters that are contemplated by or necessary for giving full effect to the provisions of this Act or for its due administration”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Peter Brown to clause 52 to insert words and omit paragraphs (a) to (d) are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 52 to omit paragraphs (a) to (d) is also out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause: 
(3A)If a contract between a regional council and an operator entered into before the commencement of this Act provides for the re-registration by the regional council of commercial public transport services operated by that operator immediately before the contract was entered into and those services or equivalent or replacement services are or were provided by the operator under the contract the regional council will re-register those commercial public services in accordance with that contract despite this Act coming into force. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 That long voting process was very necessary. The reason is that this bill is an outrage. The Public Transport Management Bill has turned into the “Public Deception Bill”. That long voting process was necessary to show that National would never let the deceptive Labour-led Government get away with it. 
Before this bill was introduced into the House it was subject to extensive consultation. Three options were put up for consultation: option A was the status quo option B was to give public authorities like the regional councils more control over public transport planning and regulation and option C was to empower the regional councils to prohibit commercial services. The explanatory note of the bill that was tabled in the House—the bill that had been agreed to by the Labour Government—had this to say about option C: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region will reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” When the bill was introduced into Parliament submitters taking part in the public consultation process had the undertaking of the Labour Government that option C would not be introduced. 
Well we now know that that promise of Labour was as good as the promises made by Labour and New Zealand First to Mr Owen Glenn in return for his generosity towards those two parties. He gave half a million dollars to Labour and $100000 to the Spencer Trust. And what did he get? As Mr Owen Glenn said he is expendable. That is how Labour is treating passengers in this legislation. 
That was the first deception. When the bill was introduced into Parliament the submitters were promised that option C would not be adopted. So the submitters who came before our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made detailed submissions for or against option B. They had done a lot of research and they had gone to great lengths to make a submission for or against option B. The only submitters who were—and probably still are—in favour of option C were without doubt the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Of course those organisations would support option C; which public authority would not support being given the total power that option C gives them? They have full control. They can remove bus operators that through the years have developed routes into being commercially viable. Option C enables those authorities to remove their right to operate. That was the first deception: the explanatory note of the bill stated that option C would not be introduced. 
Towards the end of the select committee process the chairperson the Hon Mark Gosche told the select committee that it would be a good idea for the select committee to amend the bill to include option C. That came as a total surprise to the National members on the select committee because option C had not seemed remotely possible; the submissions we heard were debating option B. We asked the officials whether it would be possible to amend the bill to introduce option C. They were under huge stress and they explained to the select committee that given the time line it was not possible to amend the bill to introduce option C. At that point the Hon Mark Gosche informed the select committee that it would not be a problem and that it would not be out of scope because the Minister of Transport had agreed to it. I presume that was the same Minister of Transport the Hon Annette King who took the result of the first public consultation to Cabinet which decided on option B. So that was interesting. Because she could not convince Cabinet to adopt option C she was introducing it through a back-door measure through having the select committee adopt option C. Well even New Zealand First members can come to their senses once or twice in a term; they decided against it. 
What happened instead? When the bill was being debated by the full Committee of Parliament the Green Party introduced an amendment to introduce option C. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Apparently that was not the first time that happened. Mr Owen Glenn also said that he thought Mr Peters was using his power over Labour. His personal opinion was that “Mr Peters is well aware of his position in terms of leverage with the Labour Party and I think this has probably gone to his head and he feels he can get away with almost anything.” I think the same thing applies in this case. The Green Party understands its power so it brought in an amendment to change the legislation which we had understood favoured option B over option C. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)