Volume 672 Week 72 - Thursday 5 May 2011 
Volume 672 Week 72 - Thursday 5 May 2011 
[Volume:672;Page:18409] 
Thursday 5 May 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 10 May the Government intends to move Government notice of motion No. 8 pertaining to the appropriations for the Officers of Parliament. We intend to make further progress on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill the Dairy Industry Restructuring (New Sunset Provisions) Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the very informative Acting Leader of the House for that information. Could he tell us when he will be in a position to outline Government expectations for the use of urgency in the following week—whether it is likely to be Friday Saturday or the following Monday. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 The shadow Leader of the House can be assured that I will keep him fully informed as these matters develop. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2011—Surplus 
1. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why is it important that the Government returns to Budget surplus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Although it has been appropriate for the Government to borrow significantly through a recession to protect New Zealanders from the sharp edges of that recession we do not want to leave a large legacy of debt for future generations so we need to constrain our deficits and return to surplus. Secondly we do not have many choices about where to spend to increase the welfare of our community until we have surpluses. The sooner we get there the sooner we can choose more services lower taxes or less debt. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How will the Budget on 19 May help the return to surplus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will continue the Government’s balanced and considered approach to managing the Government’s finances. It will further outline reprioritising— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought that the use of irony was not allowed in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will show further reprioritisation of existing spending from the kind of wasteful back-office spending the Labour Government specialised in to high-priority public services. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How will the Budget help increase New Zealand’s level of national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the Savings Working Group noted one of the most important ways a Government can lift national savings is to get its own finances in order because the Government represents around one-third of the economy. Therefore the Budget will outline the next steps in the Government’s programme to reduce the need for extra borrowing and over time repay debt. That will help to keep interest rates lower than they otherwise would be and with interest rates currently at a 45-year low that is leaving hundreds of dollars a month in the pockets of households across New Zealand. We would like to continue that for as long as possible. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that under Labour the Crown’s 2008 net financial balance including New Zealand Superannuation Fund assets was in credit by 7.2 percent of GDP but that today we are back in net debt by around 13 percent of GDP under his Government; if so can he advise the House when he will stop making excuses and take responsibility for policy choices including the $23 billion of unaffordable tax cuts that have driven this country to the brink? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I cannot confirm that. But if the member was concerned about this Government moving into deficit as it has done I cannot understand why his party continues to promise to borrow very large amounts of extra debt over and above what has been the bare necessity that this Government has followed. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What was the outlook for the Government’s finances when the National-led Government took office in November 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in October 2008 forecast Budget deficits for 10 years—for 10 years. By the time of the December 2008 update just a month or so after National was elected the forecasts had deteriorated further and on the basis of the policies of the previous Government we were looking at permanent Budget deficits pushing Crown net debt to 50 percent of GDP and never falling. We have spent the last 2 years cleaning up this mess. 
John Boscawen 
: How can New Zealand ever hope to catch Australia by 2025 when the Labor Government there has committed to a retirement age of 67 or does he consider Julia Gillard to be a right-wing extremist? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Hon Julia Gillard is admirably conservative in some respects. For instance her education policy makes all of us here look fairly left wing. But in respect of catching up with Australia the Government is pursuing a programme of infrastructure investment lower taxes better regulation improving educational standards and lifting the performance of the public sector which we believe will in time help to close the gap with Australia. 
Family Violence Prevention—Policy Formation 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she agree with the statement by Sir Peter Gluckman Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister in relation to the formation of policy in her portfolio delegation for family violence that “policy formed without consideration of the most relevant knowledge available is far less likely to serve the nation well”; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with Sir Peter’s statement that ongoing evaluation of policy decisions is needed to gauge whether such policies and initiatives should be sustained or revised? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes in some respects; in some respects that is what this Government has been doing for the last 2½—nearly 3—years. We have been looking at the services that work and comparing that against them. I also agree with Sir Peter Gluckman where he states in the same document: “One suspects that there are many Government-funded programmes now in place that when properly assessed would not meet objective tests of effectiveness;”. Effectively I am saying that change is also needed. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did she know that the Te Rito family violence fund and programme which she has just scrapped had been evaluated and was found to be fully embedded at a community level to be synonymous with family violence prevention to be invested in families’ strengths and capabilities to have identified and supported families with needs and to have increased the whole-of-family/whanau focus; if she did know why did she scrap it considering that it met the so-called goals and had been evaluated as working? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. The review of Te Rito phase two was actually done in 2005. When we looked at it in 2011 we felt that it needed to be reviewed and that we needed to look at where that funding was going and whether it was going most effectively to the front line. Those Te Rito providers can apply and have applied for that extra funding. More funding is going into family violence initiatives from this Government and that is indeed a positive thing. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table the  
Review of the Te Rito Phase II Collaborative Community Family Violence Prevention Fund 
 2009—not 2005—which is the most up-to-date one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware that the loss of Te Rito is more than the loss of funding; it is the loss of the networks the name recognition the investment in resources and the community support that was built up? As one person put it: “The network could not get a lot done without Te Rito funding. We just didn’t have the time. The community networks’ buy-in now is huge.” 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Looking at the Te Rito funding all of those applications have been accepted. They are going through a process. There is more money; in fact the Minister for Social Development and Employment put an extra $2.8 million into these family violence initiatives that are coming out. So they may actually be enhanced and they may look better. I understand the scaremongering from the other side of the House but that is all it is. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. A point of order has been called and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Annette King 
: I take exception to the comment “scaremongering”. I have used documents provided to me— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is OK for the member to object but I do not want her to carry on and debate the issue. I think the question asked was a reasonable question and did not deserve to have that kind of comment. I ask the Minister to refrain from that when the question is a reasonable question. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is Te Rito funding being transferred to the Family-centred Services Fund to foster family and whanau well-being but many agencies that now provide family violence programmes under Te Rito have been told they do not fit the criteria to get the money? They will not be providing the services so who will be and when will these new services start? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because family violence does not happen in isolation; it happens within a family it happens to more than one person and the results need to come from within. Are we moving more funding to front-line services? Is this Government looking very carefully at what is and is not working and moving funding in there? Yes we are and I am extremely proud of it. More money is going into family violence services under this Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: How does cutting over $300000 from women’s refuges remove funding from the back line or the front line? What it does is just remove funding for a service to women and children in New Zealand. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Overall funding to refuges both those part of and those separate from the collective has increased by 43 percent over the last 4 years. In addition refuges other than the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges have received more than $600000 and more than $1 million from the Community Response Fund. On top of that the collective has received more than $3 million from the fund 
Budget 2011—Youth Employment Initiatives 
3. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What announcements has she made on supporting young people into jobs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Some very good ones. Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced that $55.2 million will go into youth employment in this year’s Budget. Young New Zealanders had been hit hard; we have certainly seen those numbers today come out in the household labour force survey. We supported them initially with Job Ops and Community Max which are keeping over 15000 young people in the job market. This initiative is the next step and will provide a further 13000 places for young people over the next few years. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are the key components of the youth employment package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are three key components to this package. One is Skills for Growth which really relates jobs to training that is New Zealand Qualifications Authority accredited. It means that a young person is less likely to go back on a benefit because he or she is gaining real skills and real jobs in industries of need over a long period of time like aged care agriculture and horticulture. The second is Job Ops with Training. Job Ops has been successful; we are just taking it that extra step. Then of course there are the Limited Service Volunteers where we see fantastic motivation and self-disciplined people eager to get ahead. We are keen to support them. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Minister explain to the House what she considers extreme about wanting to allow a young Maori the right to work as an apprentice builder for $400 a week? Why does she think it is better that this person not be allowed to take up this job preferring that he sit at home on the couch watching  
Desperate Housewives 
 or playing Nintendo Wii? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I presume that the member is referring to the minimum wage particularly for youth. I suppose we would say that we are subsidising a lot of wages for employers. That is what these initiatives are doing and I really have no other answer to that question. Thank you. 
Budget 2011—KiwiSaver 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he rule out cuts to KiwiSaver in the coming Budget such as those outlined in today’s  
Dominion Post 
? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government remains committed to KiwiSaver. We have said many times that we are committed to lifting national savings. The member will have to wait for the Budget to find out what if anything happens. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by the following quote made by him: “It is important the Government plays its part in improving New Zealand’s national savings” given that he has reduced the default KiwiSaver contribution from 4 percent to 2 percent has reduced the employer contribution from 4 percent to 2 percent has deferred contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and now appears at least to be planning further cuts to KiwiSaver? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I stand by the statements I made. I am a bit surprised to find today that the Labour Party no longer has a position on KiwiSaver. It will wait until we announce ours so that it can follow it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the Minister in trying to lift national savings acknowledge that 90 percent of New Zealand’s total international debt is private debt and only 10 percent is public debt and will he therefore accept that even the most savage cuts to public expenditure could not possibly save the private savings problem? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We take a national view—after all we are a National-led Government. We believe that households and Governments should do what they can to increase national savings. I know the member agrees that the country needs more of that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree that the 271400 jobless New Zealanders—according to Statistics New Zealand today—will struggle to save at all and does he think they might be tired of waiting for the brighter future his party keeps promising is just around the next Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We agree that the number of people without jobs is too high. The good news today was that as a small step in the right direction there are 30000 new jobs in the economy in the last quarter. That is a start. Clearly there is a long way to go. 
Budget 2011—Maternity Services and Services Targeting New Parents 
5. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received in relation to maternity services and services for mothers with new babies? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a report that in Budget 2011 the Government is investing an extra $54.5 million in new initiatives for maternity services to help new mothers and their babies. This includes an extra $33 million to improve teamwork in maternity services including $18.4 million to improve safety and quality by bringing together all local maternity professionals for clinical reviews of all births. This funding will also increase the number of midwives in some hospitals together with medical specialists on site and on call. Additionally there will be an extra $6.8 million to help vulnerable mothers access a fuller range of social and health services in a whanau ora approach and to assist midwives to make timely referrals to other practitioners. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other service improvements for new mothers have been announced? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In addition to the money announced for maternity services the Government is announcing an additional $21 million over 4 years for additional well child visits. These visits have a focus on supporting vulnerable mothers to care for their babies and currently two visits are provided during the first 2 months of life. This new funding is expected to deliver three additional well child visits to 18000 mothers around New Zealand who need this additional support. This is yet another example of this Government’s determination to protect and grow the New Zealand public health service. 
Electricity—Prices 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Is she satisfied that prices charged to New Zealand consumers for electricity are fair and properly constrained by adequate competition? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister been advised either formally or informally whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra $57 million charged by Genesis Energy for electricity over a mere 7-hour period on 25 and 26 March; if so what is that decision? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The establishment of the Electricity Authority an excellent part of the electricity review that this Government undertook established it as independent so I am awaiting its report. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether she had been advised formally or informally whether the Electricity Authority will overturn that decision and she has not addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I presume she did because she said she is waiting for its report. The impression she has given the House is that she has not been advised. Does the Hon Trevor Mallard have a point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is the same point of order. I think we listened and we heard different things. What I heard was that the Minister was not going to release it publicly which she has the right to say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no I do not think we need to take this further. The Minister said she was waiting for the authority’s report—its advice in other words. The member has further supplementary questions. If the member wants to pursue the issue about informal advice he has further supplementary questions in which to pursue that. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister been advised whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra charging by Genesis Energy? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I have been advised by the Electricity Authority that it is imminently to deliver its independent report on this matter. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question. It was a very straight question which asked whether she has been advised. She can say: “Yes I was advised but I am not going to release it.” but she has not told us whether she has been advised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She said she has been advised the report is about to come out. The member can pursue that still further though. It is not hard to think of a question to test that further. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Minister meet with the head of the Electricity Authority Brent Layton at Parliament yesterday? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes in my normal monthly meeting. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister expect Parliament to believe that she did not learn from Mr Layton yesterday whether Genesis Energy will be forced not to charge that additional $57 million? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Could I hear that question again please. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister expect Parliament to believe that during her discussions with Mr Layton yesterday she did not learn whether the authority will overturn the payment of the charges by Genesis Energy? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I was advised by the chair of the independent Electricity Authority that it was imminently about to release its independent report on its investigation into this matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that for the third time now we have had answers about process and not substance. You will note that my colleague has not asked the Minister to reveal the decision but just whether she knows what the decision is. He has now asked that question three times and on every occasion she has answered by saying what the process is and not whether she knows what the result of the process is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have some sympathy for the member’s point of order. The only problem I have is with the wording of that last question which was whether she expected Parliament to believe something. That is very much about an opinion and had that question been worded differently I might have responded differently. But that wording to my mind gives the Minister some wriggle room because whether or not the Minister expects Parliament to believe something is simply an opinion. The facts of the matter could still be pursued further because there are still further supplementary questions available. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take on board your ruling but I recall the member’s first or possibly second supplementary question where twice—it was a very straight question—he asked whether she had been advised which was the question you said the member should have asked. He asked her that two questions ago and you allowed the Minister to dodge it. I think there is an issue of consistency; you cannot have it both ways. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister answered the question about the advice she had received. She told the House that she was told the report is to be released obviously very shortly. The member could have pursued that by asking specific questions about what she was actually told. Instead of that the member went on to ask questions about what she expected Parliament to believe. I cannot help members to get answers they might wish to get; I have to deal with the questions that are actually asked. The first answer I believe was a legitimate answer and there was an opportunity to pursue it with absolute precision. It is exactly the kind of situation that question time lends itself to—to ask really incisive questions—and it was thrown away with the question about whether the Minister expected Parliament to believe something. That was not an incisive question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My request to you on this occasion will be to review the tape on this as I know that you always do and to look carefully at it because I think we have different memories. My memory is that in between those two questions the member did exactly as you suggested he should and when that was taken up by way of a point of order you suggested that he ask yet another supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly look at it because it is a very fair point. I do encourage the tight questioning of Ministers and I want to try to ensure that members are rewarded for asking tight questions. But I seem to recollect that the question in between related to whether the Minister met with the chairman of the authority and the Minister answered and confirmed she had. I will review the tapes but I listened very carefully and to me the disappointing question was the final one. Asking Ministers whether they expect Parliament to believe something to me is not incisive questioning. 
Hon David Parker 
: I will reread my first supplementary question. Has the Minister been advised either formally or informally whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra $57 million charged by Genesis Energy for electricity over a mere 7-hour period on 25 and 26 March this year? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why is the Minister putting political objectives to limit the fall-out from uncompetitive excessive prices totalling a massive $57 million on just 1 day ahead of the interest of New Zealanders who are paying excessive prices for their electricity? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The report is yet to be released by the independent authority. 
Hon David Parker 
: You know what’s in it though. You know what’s in it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Oh! The report is yet to be released into the public domain so as to what is or is not in it— 
Hon David Parker 
: You met with Mr Layton yesterday. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No that is not what I answered to your question. 
Family Violence Prevention—Programme Funding 
7. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding family violence services that “funding is being moved to the frontline not away from it”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. I make no apologies for this Government’s focus on moving funding to the front line where it is most certainly needed. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she agree that services for women in crisis like Women’s Refuge safe homes are front-line family violence services and are particularly important when the number of domestic assaults is on the rise? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. I think the refuges in New Zealand do a fantastic job and are incredibly necessary. Their bed nights are vitally important and the services they provide should be kept separate from the Government and continue. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Why then did Ministry of Social Development deputy chief executive Richard Wood indicate to Women’s Refuge on 20 April 2011 that $382000 would be cut from its contract and would come from short-term residential services to women in crisis? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would need to check what the deputy chief executive said on that day. But from my understanding Women’s Refuge had money that was going from an education fund and it was actually using some of that for front-line services. Because that education fund is being changed into the family funding services that Minister Turia is doing the refuges can apply for funding via that. In fact it would sound as though they have a good chance of getting it because it is actually for front-line services and they are already doing that. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How does she explain the discrepancy between what her officials have told Women’s Refuge about short-term residential services being affected and her own statement on 28 April that there should be no effect on residential services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I suppose I would say that all the applications are in now although I believe that the collective had until 4 May to get its application in. The decisions will be made— 
Hon Members 
: That was yesterday. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well actually that was yesterday because we are already on the 5th. As a consequence those applications are being analysed now; the decisions will be made as soon as possible. I acknowledge that it has been quite a short application process but we want to get back to those services as quickly as possible so that they know what is going on. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she support Women’s Refuge advocating on behalf of at-risk women and children—for example by drawing up safety plans for them and their families? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We certainly do but I suppose that at the moment we are saying the focus really needs to go on front-line services as well. Certainly those are the bed nights that we were talking about. We believe that both can be done so that is a key focus for it. More than $62.4 million is actually going into funding for family violence services and we want to continue that. In fact we want to grow that spend. But right now we want to take that forward and make sure we are doing those front-line services. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given the Minister’s previous answer—that she does support safety plans—why then did she indicate on 28 April that funding for Women’s Refuge to provide advocacy services and to lobby the Government would not continue? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because the Minister has decided that we are moving the money into front-line services. We are not saying it is not important but we are saying what we need is evidence. We have spent a lot of time on the It’s Not OK campaign and others in raising awareness and making sure that people are getting that kind of service. Now as a consequence of that we have far more incidents of family violence being reported and people needing help. We want to make sure they are getting the actual help and the bed nights and assistance that they need. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: If domestic violence is really not OK why is it OK to cut from these front-line refuge residential and advocacy services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I suppose I will just repeat what I said in reply to a previous question which is that the overall funding to refuges both those that are part of and those that are separate from the collective has increased by 43 percent over the last 4 years. We are actually putting more money into those refuges than has ever been put in before. I am proud of that. We will continue to do that. We know that fundamentally they make a difference and so will the funding that is going into those services. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this is slightly unusual and I myself am not asking for leave but there is clearly a discrepancy here. I understood the member to indicate that she had a copy of a letter from Mr Wood. If she has not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. That is not a valid use of the points of order process. 
Prime Minister Security-related Meetings—Time and Date 
8. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: At what precise time and date were the “security related” meetings of 11 December 2009 that he referred to yesterday diaried? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: To the best of the Prime Minister’s recollection the meeting was arranged during the afternoon of 11 December 2009. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he confirm that when he referred to “security-related meetings” he was referring to issues of national security or international security; if he was not referring to matters of national or international security what was he referring to? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If he had travelled by car from Hamilton to Auckland as previously arranged would he have arrived on time for his security-related meetings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has never been the Prime Minister’s practice to talk publicly about security matters and he does not believe that it is in the public interest to do so now. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Straightforwardly the question was not about the meeting or the content of the meeting. The question has not been addressed. It was specifically about whether the Prime Minister would have arrived in time for the first of the security-related meetings not what the security-related meeting was about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a fair point. The question was whether if a car had been used the Prime Minister would have arrived on time. The question was not about what the security issues were. That deserves to be answered. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not the custom of this Prime Minister or any other to give any indication of the time or whereabouts of meetings he has that are related to matters of national security and he is not going to start doing so now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that answer given the widespread publicity yesterday of the Prime Minister indicating he had a security meeting in Auckland on the day in question. That answer just cannot be true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last point is not the issue. The issue is simply that the question was asked not about the nature of the security meeting but simply whether the Prime Minister would have arrived in time for the meeting whatever the meeting was if a motor vehicle had been used. We still have not heard that answer. It may not be in the public interest to answer that; I am not sure. But we certainly have not heard an answer to that question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I simply repeat the answer to the question: it is not the custom of this Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers to provide information that could compromise the security of that kind of meeting. It is not in the public interest to provide that information now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without discussing the tail on the end of my previous point of order yesterday on TV3 the Prime Minister indicated he had— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member is now debating the issue. I have done what I can to get the question answered. The Minister has indicated on behalf of the Prime Minister that he believes that it is not in the public interest to answer the question asked. I have to accept that. Members can make their judgment about that and there are further supplementary questions available to dig into that. The Hon Pete Hodgson has that right. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise; I am not wishing to trifle in any way. I do not think I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say it was not in the national interest to answer the question. I do not think I heard him say that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did at the end. The last past of his answer was that he considered it not to be in the public interest to answer that specific question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I am struggling to understand what it is though. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I will enlighten you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will be enlightened. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In making your judgment you have extensive powers and you can ask the Minister—as you have twice I think—to adhere to the Standing Orders and answer a question. I simply pose the question of how it is not in the national interest to confirm the Prime Minister’s arrival time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is trying to debate the issue. I can assist members in getting answers to questions but the Speaker cannot judge the quality of answers nor can the Speaker insist for a question to be answered when a Minister asserts that something is not in the public interest. I cannot—and must not—judge that as Speaker. It is not my role to judge that. People can judge that themselves. They have heard the assertion being made that it is not in the public interest. People heard the question that was asked. They have heard the Speaker seek an answer to the question that was asked. People can make their own judgment about the assessment that it is not in the public interest to answer the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was it in the public interest yesterday for the Prime Minister to indicate the timing of the security meeting but it is not in the public interest for him to do the same today? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a general indication of the type of meeting and no further details. It is not his plan—any more than it has been the custom of any other Prime Minister—to release details on those matters. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Would the Prime Minister have arrived on time to the security meeting he outlined yesterday if he had taken a car? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have already answered that question three times. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have advised us to use tight and direct questions and you have indicated previously that you thought the Minister had not answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I think on the matter is not relevant. If the Minister is going to claim that it is not in the public interest to answer the question which was a very tight question then the Minister should not just say he has already answered the question but should tell the House that he believes that it is not in the public interest to answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe that it is not in the public interest to provide those details. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Kyoto Protocol Compliance 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for Climate Change Issues—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both front benches that I want to hear Dr Cam Calder’s question. 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What recent reports has he received confirming that New Zealand is on target to meet its Kyoto commitments as a result of its moderated emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 New Zealand has just filed its latest emissions report to the United Nations Secretariat. It shows that emissions were down 3 percent from the previous year. The net position report indicates that we will comfortably meet our Kyoto commitment. These are the first 2 consecutive years of emissions reductions and contrast with the year-on-year increase of 20 percent in net emissions during the 8 previous years. The report shows that the major gains were due to the reversal from deforestation pre - emissions trading scheme to afforestation and a switch from thermal to renewable generation. About one-quarter of the reduction was due to lower economic activity from the recession. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What impact have these latest reports had on Budget 2011 and what would be the impact for taxpayers had the emissions trading scheme been scrapped? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The reduction in emissions is good news for Budget 2011 in that it reduces cost to the Government by $238 million. I have been advised that without the emissions trading scheme New Zealand would not meet our Kyoto target and would be facing a cost for buying emissions units internationally of about $210 million. These figures confirm that the Government’s moderated emissions trading scheme is working successfully. It has encouraged forest plantings and renewable energy investment and it is minimising the cost to New Zealand of meeting our international climate change obligations. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What reports has he received on the investment in renewable energy since the emissions trading scheme legislation was settled in December 2009 and what other steps is the Government taking to support renewables? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: More renewable generation was consented in 2010 than in any year in New Zealand’s history amounting to 830 megawatts—42 percent geothermal 40 percent wind and 18 percent hydro. That is five times the average annual renewable generation consented during the previous 9 years during which the bulk of new generation was thermal. This investment in renewables has resulted from the Government’s successful package of reforms including the emissions trading scheme changes to the electricity market and reforms of the Resource Management Act. Two further steps to support renewables taken this year are the introduction of a national policy statement on renewables under the Resource Management Act and on 1 May New Zealand’s joining of the International Renewable Energy Agency. 
Rahui Katene 
: What benefits for Maori have arisen as a consequence of the National Government - Maori Party agreement on the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I acknowledge that all New Zealanders have benefited from the very responsible approach that the Maori Party has brought to the issue of climate change which is seeing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Labour Party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Labour Party? Emissions went up 20 percent during Labour’s period in office—20 percent. We had record thermal generation and the highest period of deforestation ever. I particularly acknowledge the Maori Party initiative that has seen a further $24 million invested in home insulation for low-income households as well as the considerable investment by a number of Maori incorporations in forestry planting. 
Youth Unemployment—Minister’s Statement 
10. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement that “this Government is backing young people to gain skills and the confidence that gets them real jobs in go-ahead industries”; if so does she believe youth unemployment rates reflect this? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. I stand by all my statements especially this one: “this John Key - led Government is backing young people to gain skills and the confidence that gets them real jobs in go-ahead industries”. In response to the second part of the member’s question I believe that the rates would be significantly worse if it were not for the initiatives of this Government. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has unemployment for 15 to 24-year-olds increased by 53 percent since she became Minister; if not what is the correct figure? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes but we have also seen in the last 12 months an increase in employment for young people; 4000 more young people are in employment in the last year. As we saw today in the announcement of the household labour force survey more people are participating and want to be in there. We have a lot of work to do; there is no doubt about that. Young people are most affected by a recession. That is why we are making investments like $55.2 million in programmes that we think will substantially make a difference. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has the Ministry of Social Development’s overall budget increased as a result of the youth unemployment package she announced yesterday? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. We have taken money from other areas as well as from within the employment assistance package. Within the area of youth unemployment we will see that $55.2 million making a difference. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What programmes were cut in order to fund the youth unemployment package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We reprioritised within the ministry in some respects as well. Programmes like Cadet MAX do a really good job of working directly with employers but we want to get that New Zealand Qualifications Authority accreditation right next to it and get that training with them as well so that young people do not just get the jobs in industries where they are really needed but also are able to stay in employment for a longer term. It has been a reprioritisation within— 
Sue Moroney 
: Not answering the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have just talked about Cadet MAX; I have just talked about jobs for the future and said that we have changed how that dynamic works. We have taken those sorts of programmes and made sure that they have the skills and training component next to them. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Which would provide better long-term employment prospects for the 40000 15 to 24-year-old unemployed Maori and Pacific: industry training which the Minister cut $55 million from last year or Limited Service Volunteers 6-week military courses which the Minister has just put $25 million into? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It would help if the member got her facts right. I am the Minister for Social Development and Employment and not the Minister responsible for the Tertiary Education Commission which relates to the $55 million that she is talking about. That figure of course was not cut but reprioritised into areas of university training which absolutely made a difference. Those places were not being taken up. They were not being used; we are now absolutely using them. We have more people in university now which makes a difference. The member does not get many questions; one would think— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We deserve—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Parker 
: We deserve plenty of extra— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. I was going to try to quieten the House so the point of order could be heard in silence but because he kept speaking when I was on my feet I am afraid he has just lost that privilege. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Gratuitous insults from that Minister should not have to be put up with by the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a point of order and the point is reasonably made. The question was asked and the Minister disputed the facts contained in it. She is perfectly entitled to do that. But the question did not really deserve quite that kind of comment. At the same time where questioners allege that a Government has cut money where a Government considers that it has not they can expect fairly robust responses. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is really just a question on the processes that you want when we are dealing with these matters. I think all of us agree that you have tended to let things flow and play advantage—that sort of approach. The question is whether when there is that sort of comment—which I think none of us think is appropriate—we should take a point of order or whether you might intervene yourself. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is necessary to be honest—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should know that members do not interject on either side of the House. I reacted immediately to the comment but it was too late to stop it. I quickly assessed how bad it was and decided given the question asked that I would let it go. But I respect the fact that objection was taken to it. That is why I have asked the Minister to refrain from making that kind of comment unless severely provoked; I do not think that question severely provoked the Minister. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does she agree with the view of Ngai Tahu leader Mark Solomon that the reconstruction of Christchurch should be used as a gigantic trades training programme; if so will she be prepared to provide assistance to Ngai Tahu in their efforts to see a trades training initiative become a success? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As indicated by the Prime Minister yesterday there will be announcements on trades and skills in Christchurch in the very near future. But I know that this Government would certainly like to continue working in partnership with Ngai Tahu in the work they are doing. So we will continue those conversations and hope that we see some outcomes from them. 
Public Transport Auckland—Trains for Electric Rail System 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Transport. What progress has been made on the procurement—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I say to members on both sides at the front of the House that it is difficult to hear members at the back of the House. Nikki Kaye has every right to be heard as she asks question No. 11. 
11. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the procurement of new electric trains for Auckland’s commuter rail system? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Good news. I am pleased to confirm to the House that new electric trains for Auckland rail commuters are one step closer following KiwiRail’s announcement of a shortlist of two bidders. The selection process will be completed later this year and I expect to see the first trains delivered in 2013. Rail’s popularity in Auckland is rising and these new trains will build on previous work building new stations and upgrading the network. Getting all of Auckland’s transport corridors working effectively is crucial to getting the city to grow faster and provide more jobs. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Has the Minister seen reports speculating on the likely successful tenderer and how accurate are these reports? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I have seen several reports calling for the procurement of new electric trains for Auckland to be delayed because they were to be built in China—a result of all sorts of wild conspiracies. As it turns out the two shortlisted consortiums are from Korea and Japan and Europe—I suppose at least Korea and Japan are in Asia. It is just as well KiwiRail continued with the procurement job. It all goes to show that people should treat these types of reports— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As soon as Pansy was gone! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —and the relevant conspiracy theories I say to Mr Mallard which were from the Labour Party with a very large grain of salt especially in election year. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree that if he had not interfered in the process to buy the electric trains Aucklanders would be riding them now instead of waiting through a 2-year process of missed deadlines and a shonky tendering process which has seen four parties withdraw in protest? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I disagree with the member on two grounds. Firstly the trains were always scheduled to arrive in 2013. Secondly if I had not interfered petrol prices in Auckland would be 10c a litre higher today than they are because of Labour’s ridiculous regional fuel tax. If you want to campaign on bringing it back then you should go right ahead—sorry not you Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just remind the Minister that the Speaker is not campaigning on any such thing. 
Employment 90-day Trial Period—Use in State Sector 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports if any has she seen on the use of the 90-day trial provisions in the State sector? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The Minister has received no formal reports specifically on the use of the 90-day trial period in the State sector. She is aware of the State Service Commission’s guidance to chief executives not to contract out of their ability to use trial periods in collective contracts. I might add that I have also seen a report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that showed that 13000 new jobs had been created due to the trial periods. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is she confident that her assurance to the House last year that unless employees want a trial period they do not have to have one is being applied in the State sector? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes. Just because there has been guidance from the State Services Commission it does not mean to say that in particular cases of the individual contract between employer and employee a trial period would be automatic. It relates to the collective contract as a whole. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she believe the 90-day trial period provisions are working as intended given that the Parliamentary Service has issued guidelines requiring “no rights” trial periods for all new parliamentary employees when she told the House repeatedly that the fire-at-will provisions would be in employment agreements only by negotiation? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister stands by all her previous statements on this issue. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she stand by the assurances she gave the House last year that a 90-day trial period must be negotiated in good faith; if so does the State Services Commission’s direction to State sector agencies not to contract out of or restrict any application of the 90-day law meet that test? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes; and yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Very good—very good. Does she think that parliamentary and out-of-Parliament staff have the right to refuse a 90-day trial period including those employed by National Party MPs? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The use of the 90-day period is always an issue between the employer and employee—a matter of negotiation. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges to Richard Wood of the Ministry of Social Development dated 4 April noting that its organisation is to lose $382000 in funding from Te Rito advocates for children and the family violence education fund. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members for their work on this bill. It has been given a thorough examination and the amendments have made a good bill even better. 
The promotion of road safety is a very important task. Sadly and despite the best efforts of lawmakers enforcement staff engineers and others in the community road crashes still have a very significant impact in New Zealand. Far too many of us grieve the loss of loved ones killed in crashes on our roads. These crashes also impose considerable economic and social costs on our communities. For these reasons I have been pleased and privileged to be able to promote this bill which I am confident will further reduce the trauma and social costs arising from road crashes. 
It is worth noting that the Government has been very active in seeking to improve road safety during the short 2½ years it has been in office. We have not been afraid to take steps to help reduce the road toll where the evidence supports those steps. We have passed legislation dealing with illegal street-racing and drug-driving and introduced a ban on using cellphones while driving. We are currently preparing legislation that will change the give-way rule and include measures to improve motorcycle safety. 
We have reoriented our investment in new infrastructure to improve capacity and safety outcomes on our busiest and most dangerous highways with the roads of national significance programme. Today we have the final reading of the most significant road safety legislation this House has seen since the Land Transport Act was passed in 1998. 
It is also noteworthy that the House is considering this important road safety legislation at this time as 11 May marks the beginning of the UN-sponsored Decade of Action for Road Safety. New Zealand will be the first country in the world to mark this important date and the provisions in this bill along with the first action plan for Safer Journeys—our Road Safety Strategy—will provide an appropriate way to commemorate this global event. 
The most significant road safety advances in this bill are improving the safety of young drivers addressing the dangers posed by high-risk drivers and improving the enforceability of existing road safety provisions. The bill aims to improve young driver safety by increasing the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16 introducing a zero breath-alcohol limit for drivers under 20 and allowing the New Zealand Transport Agency to toughen up the practical licensing test that is necessary to obtain a restricted driver’s licence. 
These are important and vital steps in enabling us to reduce the number of young drivers who are killed on our roads. If we can match the safety levels that Australia has reached we could based on 2009 figures save up to 25 young lives a year. The date from which this increased licensing age takes effect is 1 August this year. I consider that having a specific date—from the start of a month—in the legislation will assist young people parents and caregivers to be clear about when the change takes effect. 
The harm caused by high-risk drivers is completely disproportionate to their numbers. These drivers include those who use our roads while grossly intoxicated and those who are repeat drink-driving offenders. The bill will allow the courts to require these drivers to have alcohol interlocks fitted to their car at their own expense. Alcohol interlocks are a new initiative for New Zealand but they are well proven overseas. Although they are not a silver bullet they are a new tool in the toolbox for dealing with these drivers making it clear to them that they have to separate their drinking from their driving. 
In the same light the bill provides for a new zero breath-alcohol level for these drivers. This is another new tool and it will apply for 3 years after a driver receives his or her licence back after a disqualification. These are major steps towards correcting these drivers’ dangerous behaviour on our roads and it will be an important part of improving the safety of our road system. 
I know that the Land Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received a lot of submissions requesting that the adult drink-drive limit be lowered. It is to the committee’s credit that it accepted that more specific New Zealand research needs to be carried out to identify the actual harm caused by blood-alcohol levels between the possible lower limit of 0.05 grams and the current limit of 0.08 grams. This bill will enable this work to be undertaken by police and Ministry of Transport officials so that the Government can be properly informed as to the benefits of lowering the adult blood-alcohol level. 
Finally the bill will allow for the retirement of the Transport Act 1962. It will modernise and update laws and processes especially around rule-making. It will allow road controlling authorities to make bylaws in respect of a greater range of issues and it will make a number of improvements to existing provisions to improve their enforceability. 
These changes will contribute to improved road safety and efficiency in the sector. An example of this is the amended definition of “work time” coupled with a new power to enable the police to use search warrants to obtain evidence of breaches of work time. These provisions reflect the importance of ensuring that our heavy-vehicle drivers comply with work time and rest requirements. I know that industry bodies welcome these changes as they will allow a more level playing field for the law-abiding. I hope these changes will in turn contribute to the very pleasing downward trend in fatal truck crashes that we are seeing. 
The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is an important bill and I am confident that it will support all our efforts to reduce the road toll and in so doing make our country safer. I think we are doing a good thing today in passing this bill and I commend the bill to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As Labour members have said previously we support the majority of this bill. There is a lot that is good in it. We support a zero limit for repeat drunk drivers the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders the tightening of work-time requirements for truckdrivers and the doubling of the minimum prison time for drink-driving drug-driving or reckless driving causing death. This bill builds on the work Labour did while in Government. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Oh! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: We all want to see the road toll come down and we should acknowledge that although we have different opinions about how that should be done and where the emphasis should be we come to road safety issues—well I hope we do—in the Parliament with a genuine desire across all parties to see lives saved and injuries reduced. Having said that I resent the implication from the member opposite that Labour did nothing. We take this very seriously along with all parties—and they are wrong. They are absolutely and utterly wrong. 
One of the major differences we have on this bill is the Government’s decision to ignore the opportunity to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration limit from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. It is hard to understand why this Government has ignored the overwhelming will of the New Zealand public and of experts who want to see this matter resolved in this bill. We tried very hard to help the Government save face on this matter. During the Committee stage we put forward an amendment that would have reduced the blood-alcohol concentration limit. The Government voted against it. We have a member’s bill ready to go—and have had for some time—but the Government has shown no interest. It has instead chosen a very long-winded approach to sorting out the issues and that will take 2 years and the Government’s excuse is that it needs to gather evidence. I do not think that is good enough. 
It is funny to look back to when the Minister released the Government’s Safer Journeys strategy last March. He acknowledged that the New Zealand public wanted change. We have made progress on reducing drink-driving but there are still real issues to be resolved. This bill unfortunately will leave out one of the most important remedies for reducing accidents caused by drunk-drivers and it will be put on hold for another 2 years. 
Everybody knows that reducing the blood-alcohol concentration limit makes a difference. In the Minister’s own language when he introduced restrictions on cellphone use: “This is a no-brainer.” But we have a no-brain response to reducing the blood-alcohol concentration limit even though the Minister himself tried it out and found out how silly it is. He drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine and found he was still legally able to drive. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: No I didn’t. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The Minister did and he said it was crazy. We agree it is crazy but we have to ask what happened between the time he drank all that booze found he was incompetent to drive and said the legal alcohol limits are ridiculous and the time this bill was introduced. We can only speculate. I believe that the Minister is a very pragmatic and genuine Minister but this time I think he got rolled by his Cabinet. They were happy enough to enforce a zero blood-alcohol limit on young people under 20 but at the same time they condoned a high blood-alcohol limit for adults. That is wrong. Of course Labour supports the zero blood-alcohol limit for those under 20 but what sort of example do we set for them when on the one hand we say they cannot be trusted with any alcohol but on the other hand adults can continue to drink in a crazy way to use the Minister’s own words? What sort of example does that set for young drivers? I think they will be very annoyed that the Government is increasing the driver-licensing age from 15 to 16 while at the same time it is telling young people that adults know better when it comes to drinking and particularly when it comes to drink-driving. It is a double standard. It is crazy. 
The amount a driver can drink under our current regime is ridiculously high. The current blood-alcohol concentration limit allows people to become significantly impaired and still legally drive. It has been tested by people up and down the country. There have been many reports of that in the newspapers. The blood-alcohol concentration limit for adult drivers was set in 1978 a long time ago and since then New Zealand and international research has consistently demonstrated the benefits associated with lowering the blood-alcohol concentration levels to 0.05 grams—or lower—in saving lives and preventing serious crashes. 
The Minister of Transport referred in his speech to what the Australians are doing. Actually let us look at what they have been doing. New South Wales achieved an 8 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 7 percent reduction in serious-injury crashes—this is by lowering the blood-alcohol concentration limit—and Queensland achieved an 18 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes. Belgium achieved a 10 percent reduction in all alcohol-related fatalities and France achieved a 30 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes. So why is New Zealand different? Why do we have to wait 2 years? Why do we need 2 more years’ research to prove what we already know? This has annoyed the public. They will be annoyed when they find out that the Government has missed an opportunity to deal with this. The polls have repeatedly shown that they are overwhelmingly in favour of this measure and according to Alcohol Healthwatch not reducing the limit is “gutless” and a missed opportunity to save at least 14 lives a year. I quote its director Rebecca Williams. She said: “We simply do not need more research to tell us that this will effectively save lives and reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes on our roads. Nearly 300 studies showed driving skills were significantly impaired at the current 80mg limit and public support for lowering the limit was growing. This is a regrettable failure that leaves our Government with blood on its hands.” 
I am sure most National members know in their hearts that this is a poor decision. Although as I said there is much in the bill that is good this is a poor decision. It has missed the opportunity to save lives. I know that Jackie Blue for example will be gutted by her party’s decision. Actually I know that the Minister does not really have his heart in it either. I am sorry but the Government is playing irresponsibly with the lives of Kiwi road users by not taking this important— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: You don’t need to apologise for saying that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —well I am very polite—step now and instead delaying it for another 2 years. 
Then there is the other part of the bill that Labour has had difficulty with and that is the reduction in the driver-licensing age. Sure it looks good on paper and sounds good. It looks good in the media. “Let’s have a go at the young. After all they are not a particularly politically vocal group and drivers under the age of 18 cannot vote.” We thought long and hard about this but the difficulty is that the Government has grabbed a low-hanging fruit approach to this. “Let’s just put up the driver-licensing age.” The problem is it will impact on the rural communities on young workers who have to go to work where there is no public transport and where their families rely on that additional work to boost the family income particularly at this time when the cost of living is so appallingly difficult for people. 
We have difficulties with this measure because there is no evidence that raising the age will reduce the accident rate for young drivers. There is no evidence. No one is clear whether it is the age the lack of experience or the lack of supervised driver training that is causing the problems. We think this is a big step to take given the impact it will have on the communities I have mentioned. We know that the greatest risk for young drivers is during their first 6 months of driving independently. I think what this provision will do is simply shift the age at which we have problems. We believe that young people learning to drive need to have proper education and proper supervision and we support the extension in this bill from 6 to 12 months for the learner-licence period before a driver can obtain a restricted licence. 
As I said there are two problems with this bill. We have outlined them. We tried to assist the Government in the Committee stage. We are particularly regretful that the bill does not go far enough in dealing with the adult blood-alcohol concentration level. It is a missed opportunity. It is a sad time for New Zealanders and road users. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. First of all I congratulate the Minister of Transport on bringing this series of legislation before the House. This legislation is here to deal with road safety issues. It is formulated on the basis of the  
Safer Journeys 
 document which is the Government’s road safety strategy to 2020 and represents real and positive steps being made in the road safety arena that have not been made in the last decade by the previous Government. It shows a fair and balanced approach and is taking a measured approach looking at what can be done now and what will set up for the future any further developments that the Parliament wishes to pursue. 
I congratulate the Minister on taking these initiatives on being bold and actually doing it and on pressing the bill through the Parliament with the support of the other parties. I thank those other parties that will vote for this bill today. I understand that we will have a lot of support in passing this legislation which is important in sending a signal that this Government and this Parliament are serious about road safety and wish the best for all our drivers young and old to make sure that they have the ability to use and benefit from our roads in a safe and secure manner. 
I thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—some have already spoken and others will speak—for the way that they approached the issues involved. They took a very serious approach and looked to make as many changes as could be made in promoting this bill so that we had the best possible legislation going forward through the select committee process. I also thank the officials. We acknowledge the work that they did through that process and thank them for their efforts in bringing this bill to fruition. 
Basically the bill has two main parts to it. First is the driving age which is now raised from 15 to 16 years. This is a major change to the driving laws especially for young people in New Zealand. The second part is the toughening of sanctions for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. Those two parts are the major policy initiatives that this legislation represents. There have been arguments around the driving age as to whether 15 16 or higher is appropriate. Effectively the age of 16 brings New Zealand to an approach consistent with that of Australia and other States that have been shown to have an effective approach and have shown results from increasing the driving age. There are also rules and regulations around supervision and the process of getting a full driver’s licence that should also ensure that young drivers become good drivers when they pass their test and are able to look after themselves and other road users. 
The other part of the legislation at the forefront is the sanctions for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. Lowering the legal youth drink-driving blood-alcohol concentration to zero which members have spoken about in this debate is an important part of those sanctions. It is another signal to young drivers that drinking and driving is not acceptable. There will also be the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders who have very high blood-alcohol levels which will enable the introduction of zero drink-driving limits for those serious offenders. 
Also there will be further research on the risks posed by drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams and there will be a strengthening of the penalties for offences causing death. Members will see that strengthening in clause 19 of the bill which has imprisonment of 10 years as a possible penalty for somebody who causes death through drink-driving. 
It will also allow the police to gather further evidence of those drivers involved in fatal or serious crashes. Road safety will be promoted in a number of other ways through the collection and analysis of blood specimens and the tightening of work-time requirements to prevent fatigue in certain drivers. 
Essentially the bill is based around road safety. It is in the best interests of all New Zealand drivers. The two key parts of it relate to the minimum age for driving and also drink-driving limits. We see this bill as an important step in making our roads safer and also in looking after our young and older drivers throughout New Zealand. I commend it to the House and congratulate all those involved in making this legislation a reality today. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure for me to rise and speak in support—for the most part—of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As Opposition members are wont to do we have focused on the areas of the bill we disagree with and where we disagree with the Government. But it is important to reinforce the point that Labour endorses the overwhelming majority of this bill and endorses the intention of this bill to improve road safety to lower the number of lives lost every year and to lower the injury rate on the roads in New Zealand. To that end we support most of the measures in the bill. 
We support measures like the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. It is important that people who are caught drinking and driving receive the message when they are in court on that first offence that they should not have done it in the first place that when they are allowed to drive again and get their licence back there is an expectation that they will not do it again and that if they are caught doing it again then the penalties will be much much harsher. That I think will help to provide the kind of incentive to keep people from becoming drink-drivers or worse repeat drink-drivers. 
I would like to point out though that the point at which someone is caught drinking and driving is an excellent opportunity to get them assessed and to decide whether they could benefit from some form of alcohol treatment. It may prove that they have an alcohol addiction. It may prove that they are exhibiting behaviours that will indicate they are likely to become a repeat drink-driver regardless of the penalties. That is an excellent opportunity for the health system to step up and provide the kind of treatment that could actually prevent that drink-driving behaviour showing itself and that could prevent possible accidents injuries and deaths from that behaviour further down the track. 
Unfortunately at the moment our health system is not very responsive; we do not have the capacity in our health system to respond in that kind of way. There is a significant waiting list for those who self-identify or are referred by whatever means. However people are identified as having a drug or alcohol problem there is a significant waiting list for getting them into treatment. Often we find that by the time that treatment becomes available particularly for those who are self-identified as being at risk motivation is perhaps not there any more and they do not engage in that treatment in the way they might have had the treatment been available on the spot. So it would be great to see going hand in hand with this legislation improved funding and improved support for the health system to be able to respond to drink-drivers who are discovered as a result of their being caught to have a drinking problem. 
Labour also supports the zero limit for drivers under 20. People under 20 are learning to drive learning to become better drivers and learning how to be part of the traffic system. That often has its issues and that is why we see so many accidents and issues amongst those drivers who are learning. But of course many of them at that age are also learning to drink and the two absolutely should not mix. We know amongst adults that the two should not mix and these are the two things that should not go together for young people learning to drive and learning how to drink responsibly. So we absolutely support the zero limit for under 20 drivers. 
We also support the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. Going back to what I was saying about harsher penalties I repeat that if someone is silly enough to be a repeat offender or has not had the support to deal with an alcohol addiction then some consequences are going to have to come with that and I suppose the giving up of some liberties is going to have to come with that. The ability to drive without that interlock does not seem like a great liberty to have to give up and this will ensure that drivers have not imbibed too much alcohol before they get behind the wheel. 
There is much in this bill that Labour is supportive of including doubling the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. I know that that will be very very well received by the New Zealand public particularly by those who have lost loved ones at the hands of someone who has been behind the wheel when they should not have been—either through having had too much to drink or consuming other drugs—or who has taken a life as a result of reckless driving. I know that will certainly be well received. 
Where the Labour Opposition departs from the Government’s view on this bill is that we think this was an ideal opportunity to reduce the adult blood-alcohol level from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. This was one of those rare—perhaps not so rare—opportunities that everybody in Parliament looks for when both the evidence and the court of public opinion come together. The evidence is strongly in favour of reducing the blood-alcohol limit the public opinion is strongly in favour of reducing the blood-alcohol limit and indeed the Minister of Transport’s own anecdotal research is in favour of reducing the blood-alcohol limit. So it really is a missed opportunity for this Parliament to carry out something that the evidence says not only is the right thing to do but would be extremely well received by the New Zealand public. 
The Minister and the Government say that we need to gather more evidence on this issue. I have no doubt that once that evidence is gathered this change will occur. I have absolutely no doubt that in the fullness of time the blood-alcohol limit in New Zealand will be reduced from 0.08 to 0.05. It is just a pity we are not doing it now. If we look overseas to Australia we see that in New South Wales an 8 percent reduction in fatal crashes was achieved and a 7 percent reduction in serious injury crashes was achieved after the state reduced its blood-alcohol limit. In Queensland an 18 percent reduction was achieved in fatal crashes and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes. Belgium achieved a 10 percent reduction in all alcohol-related fatalities and France achieved a 30 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes. So the evidence is there. We do not really need to wait to gather more evidence or to put at risk any more lives; we could be doing it now. But I do have hope that in the fullness of time this change will occur and that Parliament will go ahead and do what is right—do what people are crying out for us to do if we are honest. 
The other area where we disagree with the Government concerns increasing the driver-licensing age from 15 to 16. That I guess is a slightly different situation from what we have seen with the blood-alcohol limit. I can imagine that a lot of people out there instinctively feel that increasing that driver-licensing age is the right thing to do. It just seems as if to increase the age from 15 to 16 is a sensible thing to do. We know that a lot of the crashes happen amongst those young people and we know that if we allow someone to mature an extra year then they will be that much more mature. But the evidence simply does not bear that out and we have to be making evidence-based policy and passing evidence-based legislation in this Parliament. Much as the public might think instinctively that it is a good idea—and certainly when I first heard of the idea I thought it was a good idea—when we looked at the evidence we found that the evidence simply did not back it up. The problem is that young drivers in those first few years of driving are at a much higher risk. It does not matter whether they start driving at 15 or 16. Really unless we were to increase the driver-licensing age to 25—the age when the frontal lobe is fully developed and hopefully when most people have achieved a much greater level of maturity—then increasing the age would not make sense. But the evidence does not back up the increase from 15 to 16. 
There are some areas where Labour differs from the Government’s position but overall we are very pleased to support this legislation. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to take a call on the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the officials and everyone who came to the select committee and submitted. I acknowledge Darren Hughes who introduced a Supplementary Order Paper and who was involved in the submission process. The Green Party also acknowledges the importance of road safety; every death that occurs on our roads is a tragedy. Many of us in this Chamber have been impacted on by deaths or serious accidents on our roads and every single one of those is a tragedy. We need to do everything we can to make sure we have fewer and fewer tragedies every year. 
The Green Party will be supporting this bill and we support the intent to make our roads safer. We believe genuinely that this bill will make our roads safer; however we lament the missed opportunities. There are possibly some once-in-a-decade or once-in-a-generation opportunities that we could have taken in this bill while the stars were aligned to reduce the blood-alcohol content. We are also missing another opportunity because while we are talking about  
Safer Journeys 
 the New Zealand Transport Agency’s discussion document and while we are passing this legislation today to make our roads safer what is happening with road transport planning and road transport funding in New Zealand is doing the opposite. In fact what we are doing is becoming more dependent on our cars more dependent on heavy trucks and more dependent on oil which will see more of us and more of our whanau impacted on by deaths on our roads. 
The most effective thing we could be doing to reduce the road toll in New Zealand is reducing the number of cars on our roads by giving people real options to bike safely to work to take a train that is reliable or to take a bus that is affordable and convenient. Those are the things we need to talk about; those are the opportunities we have missed. 
When we look at the context we see that this Government—and it is a pity that Steven Joyce has left the Chamber because he has just released his draft Government policy statement—and Steven Joyce have literally raided the transport pantry to fund his pet seven roads of national significance. In fact with his latest Government policy statement he has actually obtained the crumbs to fund the four new roads of national significance. I do not want to speak badly of the Taupo to Cambridge Road or the people who frequent that road but I do not— 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the cost-benefit ratio? 
GARETH HUGHES 
: That is a good question. The fact is that more people drive on big-city arterial roads or on Kopu Bridge than they do on that road. There is a distinct smell of hawk when it comes to that road and to some of the other four new roads of national significance. The flipside is that as Steven Joyce has raided the pantry to fund his pet roads there is just no more money for those alternatives which we need in 2011 to deal with the climate crisis the oil crisis the inequality crisis and the lack of real affordable options that many Kiwi families have in order to get to work. 
In the latest Government policy statement the budget for public transport infrastructure declines seriously over the next 10 years. It is necessary that we start work now on Auckland’s inner-city central business district rail loop and Wellington City’s light rail system. We need the Government to step up to the plate. At the moment for every dollar it is spending on walking cycling buses and trains it is pouring $7 on to its pet seven political “roads of National Government significance”. That is mad for the climate when our emissions have increased 70 percent since 1990; it is mad when we consider that oil is now at its most expensive ever in our country’s history at $2.21 a litre; it is mad when we consider we are in the midst of an obesity crisis and more people die from air pollution from road transport than they do from road accidents on our roads; and it is mad when road safety is what we are trying to achieve. 
The Green Party supports the bill but we want it to go further. We will be voting for it but we lament those opportunities. We agree the driving age for 15-year-olds should be increased to 16. I think the member Mr Lees-Galloway might like to look at some of the evidence. I have seen the evidence and I believe that it is compelling. I did not want to raise or support raising the driving age to 16. As soon as I turned 15 I went to get my driver’s licence. As soon as I could I got a car just like so many Kiwi kids do. The first thing they want to do is get around driving their cars. The fact is that many Kiwi 15-year-olds just do not have realistic alternatives to get to work or to school. 
We support alcohol interlocks we support the zero blood-alcohol level for repeat drink-drivers and we support the increased sanctions for repeat drink-driving offences. We even support changing the procedures in relation to how we deal with blood specimens clarifying the roles of parking wardens and a whole host of the smaller less controversial measures in the bill. But the three parts of the bill we seriously disagree with are the youth blood-alcohol level the treatment of drink-drivers and again which Labour has rightly pointed out the need—the urgent need—to reduce the blood-alcohol level for over-20-year-olds to 0.05 grams. 
Firstly looking at the youth issue we have effectively dropped the blood-alcohol level to zero—0.03 grams. We believe that this legislation is scapegoating our young people. The real issue is that 92 percent of heavy drinking in this country is by over-20-year-olds. It is politically expedient to focus on just the under-20-year-olds when many of them do not in fact vote for the governing party for rightful reasons. It is convenient to target them and to ignore the big important issue which is adult drink-driving and the broader issue that we have a drinking problem in this country. Treatment is missing from the bill. Perhaps it did not have to be in this legislation but I think the Government needs to step up to the plate with more support for alcohol treatment. We know that 80 percent of repeat drink-drivers in New Zealand have a drinking problem yet only 5 percent of those 30000 people convicted annually for drink-driving offences receive any sort of alcohol treatment—only 5 percent. We need to be stepping that up. Clearly as a nation we have a drinking problem. It is $4 billion in social costs. 
At the same time that this legislation is going through we have the Alcohol Reform Bill which comes from the Law Commission report to try to tackle the serious issue of our cultural problem with drinking in New Zealand. Unfortunately this bill adopts the same position as the Alcohol Reform Bill which is that it is politically expedient to target young people and not look at the bigger more fundamental structural reasons for why we have a drinking problem in New Zealand. Under the Alcohol Reform Bill the focus is on the split regime or whether we raise the age of purchasing alcohol from 18 and 19 years old to 20. We are ignoring the pervasive $70 million - plus alcohol advertising industry. We are ignoring the pervasive sponsorship of events university orientations sports clubs— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: You’re getting out of scope Gareth. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I believe that it is in scope I say to Mr Woodhouse. It ignores the accessibility— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are successive Speakers’ rulings on scope in third reading debates. I suggest Mr Hughes’ debate on the merits of the alcohol purchase age and advertising are well outside the scope. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say that this is the third reading. Often it is a reading that encompasses everything that has been said in the debate and the member is doing just that. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I do not want to waffle because in fact I am running late. I am accepting on the steps of Parliament a petition from Gisborne to save their local rail line so I will push on. 
We have a drinking problem in this country and the most effective thing we could have done was— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wishing to challenge your ruling I wonder whether you would explain Speakers’ ruling 117/4(1) which states that the member cannot discuss “Any matter not included in the clauses of the bill;”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can actually do that. The reality is that this is a third reading debate. A third reading debate often refers to things that have gone on in the Committee stage of the House. I did not hear that debate but it may well be that the member did. But if that member had just waited the honourable member Gareth Hughes had changed his stance and was moving back towards what he started with. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: That is correct; I was pushing on. Obviously alcohol is the key part of this bill and that is what I was referring to. Today we should be reducing the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. We know the New Zealand Transport Agency’s estimates: we could be saving between 15 and 33 lives; we could be saving 686 people in this country from serious injuries. The evidence is there. More than 300 international reports show we should be doing that. Public opinion maybe for the first time in decades is onside. I acknowledge that Labour members discussed the issue but did not cross the bridge to reduce the blood-alcohol level when they were in Government. The evidence and public opinion are onside. We are not talking about going out on a limb; we are talking about moving into the international norm. Twenty-three other OECD nations have reduced their blood-alcohol level to 0.05 grams. It would be only going in line with World Health Organization guidelines. 
I will finish with what I found to be the most compelling submission in the select committee process. It was from Professor Doug Sellman and I will read a quote from him: “We have legalised drunk-driving in New Zealand [with our current blood-alcohol level.] … Decisions like this make me feel ashamed to be a New Zealander. … Let every death and every injury that occurs in fellow citizens over the next two years and the suffering of their families be felt by those Members of Parliament who are actively conspiring against the safety health and well-being of ordinary New Zealanders for the sake of other agendas by supporting ‘more research’ rather than ‘action now’ on legal drunk driving; and shame on those Members of Parliament who sit back and do nothing while this scandalous decision is passed into law.” We are missing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tackle those serious issues. Although the Green Party supports the bill and its intent we lament the missed opportunity. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Like Labour and the Green Party the Maori Party has found that the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is one of those pieces of legislation that present the most dreadful dilemma. As we have done our best to consider each of the implications and consequences of the issues encompassed in the bill we have really had to sweat on our decision. It has not been an easy journey. For the sake of a simple yes or no we have had to consider a mixed bag of options in repealing the Transport Act 1962 and amending the Land Transport Act 1998. The key changes proposed encompassed in the vote today take into account the push to raise the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16 years a zero breath or blood-alcohol concentration for drivers aged 20 years of age and under tougher sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders possibilities of an alcohol interlock sentence and a zero-alcohol licence and a range of other measures for enforcement and control. 
The question that has challenged us right throughout the process is how our vote can represent and give shape to the range of issues that any of these provisions provoke. Take for example what is undoubtedly the most contentious provision which is raising the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16. Personally I find it laughable that we think 1 year will make a huge difference. All of us entered the debate knowing that young Maori have the highest per capita fatality rate. Just on the youth demographic alone young drivers make up 14.5 percent of New Zealand’s population and 16 percent of all licensed drivers but in 2008 young drivers were involved in around 37 percent of all serious injury crashes. 
When we add in ethnicity to the mix it becomes even more volatile. From a statistical basis Census 2006 shows that Maori make up 19.5 percent of the 15-19 age group yet Maori make up 26 percent of all drivers aged 15-17 who are involved in fatal accidents. Let us be quite clear: these statistics are an indictment on our nation and place an unacceptable burden on the Maori population. There is no debate over whether we have a problem with road safety. There is a difference in whether we have the right solutions to achieve change. The statistics for the years 2006 to 2008 show that of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes the 20-24 and 25-29 year age groups were the most likely to be affected by alcohol or drugs. So should we focus on drug and alcohol treatment rather than on lifting the licensing age? Our views among the caucus were inevitably based on a rural lifestyle where people drive from a young age out of necessity. Country kids often assist with stock moving and droving on the farm. They might also help move stock on the road acting as sentinels to slow down oncoming traffic using either their farm bikes or sport utility vehicles. Given these realities our caucus thought instead that we might support making the restrictive test more difficult and extending the learner licence period from 6 to 12 months. We believe that there are enough regulations in place to moderate driver behaviour such as restricted licences and learner licences. We would also like to see more investment in defensive driving education. A common concern from across our constituencies is that driving education is too costly. We believe that rangatahi should have access to high-quality road safety education. We must improve road safety education for young people and increase access to it.  
During the month leading up to the third reading of the bill each of us in the caucus has looked more keenly around our rural communities to put to the test our theory that rural families will be particularly disadvantaged by raising the driving age. What we saw shocked us. We found that people do not buckle up regardless of age. Adults model behaviour and in too many cases their behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. Unrestrained children are regularly seen being held by an adult in a vehicle with the adult also not restrained. There seems to be a challenge to dare to drive unbuckled. In fact those living in the city can be identified as driving buckled up and locking their cars when they get out of them. Fines do not work; they are just not paid. Referrals are made to the nearest social services driving courses and applications are submitted to Work and Income to pay for the courses but do the fines prevent further offending? It is hard to say. Will amending a by-law—a process requiring a special consultative procedure—or introducing a vehicle be the superior answer?  
As is no doubt self-evident the questions kept coming and with each new issue another set of questions arose. Then just 2 months ago in the  
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 
 I came across an article by a team of writers including a distinguished researcher from the Ngai Tahu Maori health research unit at Otago University John Broughton. The paper was entitled “Road safety attitudes and opinions of newly licensed Maori car drivers: New Zealand Drivers Study”. The article saw its genesis in the disproportionate impact of motor vehicle traffic crashes amongst Maori. In 2006 the age-standardised motor vehicle traffic crash death rate for Maori was 20 per 100000 of the population compared with 9 per 100000 of the population for non-Maori. 
Not content with the statistics John and his colleagues Anna McDowell Dorothy Begg and Jennie Connor looked into the New Zealand drivers study of some 4000 car drivers to find some answers. To encourage Maori participation Maori community iwi organisations from Napier Hastings Wairoa Gisborne Ruatoria Manukau and Mangere in South Auckland and Dunedin were subcontracted to recruit study participants in their region. The study found that there was a surprising level of support for raising the minimum driver-licensing age and introducing a zero blood-alcohol limit for beginner drivers. That was encouraging from a safety perspective as it came from a cohort of predominantly young drivers who are often thought to oppose such moves. Of particular interest to us was the support indicated for raising the minimum driver-licensing age from 15 to 16 years. The data indicate that this change would have the support of 45 percent of the urban and 33 percent of the rural newly licensed Maori drivers in the study. Another interesting finding was that the lack of knowledge about the penalties for committing any offences would suggest that the penalty regime was having little if any detrimental or deterrent effect.  
Where did we get to then with our vote? We decided that the disproportionate number of injuries and fatalities among the Maori population as a direct result of car accidents required our absolute commitment to getting it right. We want to protect and preserve life—the life of those driving passengers and those who wait at home for a loved one who never returns. We have no choice but to invest in the hope that this package of initiatives will this time make the difference that ultimately will keep people alive particularly our rangatahi. We therefore make this our final vote one of support. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I love the third reading debate because that is when everybody seems to become pious and nice and there is no rough and tumble. I love how the Opposition members when they have been in Opposition for only a couple of years having come from a stint of being— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member does not want to hear it. I know those members do not want to hear this but they were in power for 9 years. Iain Lees-Galloway said that now is the most opportune time to do something. Why did it become the most opportune time? It became the most opportune time to do something because Labour became the Opposition. For 9 years those members did not do anything. We have heard what I consider to be nothing more than— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: It took a long time to fix up the mess from the 1990s. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well that lady will not win out in west Auckland; we know that. She has not even found her way around west Auckland so far. 
The fact of the matter is that the problem we face today is with the recidivist drink-driver. That is where the carnage is. It is not with the young person and it is not with the older person who might be caught once but it is actually with the recidivist drink-driver. That is where the problem is. I am proud to be a member of the Government that has attacked that area. My message to the recidivist drink-driver is that we are coming for you; you cannot hide any more. No you cannot hide even from the Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member was referring to the Chair and he has been around long enough to know he should not do that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well at least I will—no no I will not say that Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon Member 
: Go on. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I will not say that. 
The idea that the Greens and Labour have found a new heartfelt area of concern boggles the mind because they were part of a Government that spent 9 years here and did not do a damn thing. I am quite proud to be part of a Government that clearly saw that there were things to do—that clearly saw we should raise the driver-licensing age. You know I am with most people here in the House who say: “Yeah I got my licence at 15 and could not wait to get it.” but that was when there were Cortinas and the likes. Nowadays the sort of car that one can get would drag off anything from those days. Times have changed so we must move with the times and put on more restrictions purely and simply for safety reasons: purely and simply to save lives. I think this Road Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as it states is about road safety. It is about saving lives; it is about what we want to do as a contribution towards saving someone’s life. 
I know that there are plenty of people here in this House who have had experience with somebody being either maimed or killed as the result of a drink-driver. I will say that the person out there who is most a target of this legislation is the recidivist drink-driver who gets into his car—and it is usually a “he”—and who does not think about what he has already been done for which is drink-driving. 
Again I thank the Minister of Transport I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I thank the officials for doing such a wonderful job of putting the information there. The process has been one whereby we have been able to hear from young people from older people and from experts in this area. Our officials have done a very very good job of clearing the way through all of that information allowing us to make up our minds and giving us the direction that we all needed to have. I think that it is time for members opposite to support this legislation and put on the back-burner their little populist issues. They can have their time when and if they get back to the Treasury benches. That is the time for it. They should get in behind us let us do the job and wait for their turn in 2035. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow Tau Henare after he has been speaking on a bill. He normally gives me so much material but having listened to that speech I have nothing because he did not make a single useful point that was worthy of any rebuttal in those 10 minutes. I sat here thinking that that was 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back. That is the only thing I could think when Tau Henare was speaking although he did raise one or two things. He talked about the fact that when he was growing up there were Cortinas—the cars that people could get when he was growing up were Cortinas. Well he must be younger than he looks. All I can say is that he must be younger than he looks because I am pretty sure that there would have been much much older cars on the road when Tau Henare was growing up. In fact I am surprised people actually had motorcars back in those days. I am surprised they had motorcars at all. 
He talked about populist issues as well. I thought that was kind of an interesting itch for him to scratch because I think the most populist issue— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I thought you didn’t have anything to say about my speech. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. Well it is all coming back to me now. The most populist issue in this Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is raising the driving age from 15 to 16 because there is no evidential base for doing that. The only thing it can be about is populism because the Government has not established an evidence base. 
The Government’s position on the two contentious issues in this bill—the raising of the driving age and the lowering of the blood-alcohol level—is very contradictory. There is a very compelling evidential base to say that lowering the blood-alcohol level for people driving will work. It will save lives and it will make our roads safer yet the Government will not do it. There is clear evidence to suggest it will work and the Government will not do it. There is very little evidence that can be nailed down that says that raising the driving age from 15 to 16 will work and will make our roads safer but the Government is doing it. I do not know what the polling numbers are for raising the driving age although I suspect it would be pretty popular with most of the people who are not in the age category that will be affected by it. But polls do not reflect whether it will work. In the case of decreasing the blood-alcohol level I would not rely on an opinion poll for that. I would rely on the evidence and the overwhelming evidence suggests that it will work and will make our roads safer. There is no evidential base that increasing the driving age from 15 to 16 will make our roads safer. 
In fact this bill does not just increase the driving age from 15 to 16; it effectively changes the system we have so that before young people get behind the wheel of a car independently and drive by themselves they will be 17. That will have a significant impact on a number of young people particularly those who live in rural or isolated areas or in suburban areas where there is no good public transport. It will impact on young people’s ability to participate in sport. It will impact on their ability to participate in any kind of community or team-focused activities. What will kids do when they cannot do that stuff? They will be more likely to get into trouble. They will be more likely to be out there tagging. They will be more likely to be out there doing stuff that we do not want them to be doing. If they had a bit more freedom they would keep out of trouble and we would not have other problems that we might have to deal with as a result of this. If there was an evidential base that suggested that raising the driving age from 15 to 16—effectively to 17 which is what this bill does—then I would be open to that but that has not yet been established. 
Overall when looking at the evidence that has been presented we see there is no compelling case. Most of the crash statistics that the New Zealand Transport Agency collects is for the age band of 15 to 19-year-olds so it is difficult to look at the raw statistics and paint a picture that justifies raising the age. It is also not clear from the evidence whether the crashes that happen in that 15 to 19-year-old age bracket are the result of a lack of experience a lack of supervised driver training or other factors rather than age itself. Are we simply delaying the accidents that will currently happen involving 15 16 and 17-year-olds by a year or two? When young people get their licences will they still end up going through that same phase? If that is the case we have not made the roads any safer at all; we have simply delayed it. The cost of delaying it is that young people particularly those in rural and isolated areas have lost the freedom that comes with being able to drive a car. 
One point that Tau Henare made that I have already alluded to was about his Ford Cortina. I assume his first car was a Ford Cortina—fine. He was correct that we now have much more souped-up cars on the road that young people can get behind the wheel of. Those cars are much much faster. That is a concern but it is not to do with the age at which they can get their driver’s licence; it is to do with the types of cars that we have on the road and the modifications that people make to them. There is a cost factor in there as well. There are a whole lot of other issues that we would need to unpack and consider but the age itself is not the proxy for dealing with the issue of young people getting in trouble behind the wheel. 
One of the things that we could do is look at the structure of driver training in this country because I think driver training in this country is not good; it is quite weak. I think we could beef that up and strengthen that considerably. That is not to do with age; it is simply to do with whether when somebody goes through driver training and learns to drive they are taught to drive safely. They should be taught what to do in an unpredictable situation. Cars are very very unpredictable. Roads are very unpredictable. Unfortunately the way our driver training works in this country in terms of the driver’s test is incredibly predictable. When I was tested for my driver’s licence I went out with the driving instructor an hour before I did my test and we drove the circuit that I was going to be tested on—and there were some roadworks—so that when the time came to do the test I had already been through the roadworks the driving instructor had reminded me that I needed to this that and the next thing when I went through the roadworks and I passed the test with no problem at all. There was nothing unpredictable about it because I had already just driven around that circuit. I knew exactly what the testing officer was going to ask me to do. If we want young people or even older drivers when they are driving for the first time to be tested on whether they can cope we need to look very seriously at the training system that we have in place and the testing system that we have in place for our drivers. 
I would also argue that some of the most dangerous drivers on our roads have been driving for quite some time and have slipped into some quite bad habits. I think some of our most sensible drivers would be amongst some of the newest drivers who have just been through the theory tests and so on—for example they put both hands on the steering wheel. I would bet that not every member in this House—in fact I would say the minority of members in this House—drives with both hands on the steering wheel; they might have one hand resting on the gear lever or on the arm rest. Most young people of course are so blimmin paranoid about it because they have just been through the test and they are so worried about it that they have both hands on the steering wheel. They are probably safer drivers than many older people who have slipped into bad habits. I think we could look a bit more at that if we want to make our roads safer. 
I would argue that it is quite clear that an inexperienced 16 or 17-year-old driver is just as likely to have a crash as an inexperienced 15-year-old driver. So increasing the driving age by a year or two as the bill effectively increases the driving age by 2 years because of the changes it makes to the beginner licensing period will not change the problem; it will simply shift the problem from one age band to another. 
I want to return briefly to the issue of lowering the blood-alcohol level which Labour has been arguing for. The blood-alcohol limit we have now is dangerously high and if anything the debate on it has simply highlighted to a number of people that they can drink more than they thought they could and still be allowed to drive. I think a lot of people—anyone who has paid attention to this debate—did not know that they could drink a heck of a lot more than they thought they could drink and still be legally allowed to drive. This debate unfortunately could have simply been counterproductive and let people know that they can drink more than they thought they could. I think people do drink and drive in this country and get away with it because they are legally within the limit even though they are not fully in control and fully alert when they are behind the wheel of a vehicle. I think lowering the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 as has happened in so many other countries and as the evidence suggests we should be doing is one of the things the Government should be doing in this legislation. It is not and I think that is a wasted opportunity. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 On very important legislation regarding matters of safety I am sure that every member of the House when considering that legislation wants to know that when it is passed things will be better—that the legislation will actually make a difference. The Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is definitely one of those bills. We want to know that there will be a reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads when this bill becomes law. 
We have heard right through the readings of this bill that there are members who although they are generally supportive of the bill would be doing things differently if they were in Government. That is the nature of democracy. There has been some quite vigorous debate in previous readings and in the Committee stage challenging parts of the bill but I would have thought that by now the Opposition might be a little more generous in its support of the bill particularly given the Opposition’s total inertia in its 9 years in power. The member Ms Fenton may have spent about 30 seconds pretending to be generous and saying there were some good aspects of the bill but she then spent about 9½ minutes bagging the various things she thinks we should have done and did not do or things we did do but should not have done. That was generally the theme of a rather disingenuous contribution by a member on the other side. 
In fact Labour is now going to introduce a member’s bill to reduce the blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 to 0.05. Well I trust that those members will simultaneously stop their silly nonsense on members’ days in terms of the sort of filibustering that has been going on like the disgraceful display— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member some time recently raised a point of order to talk about the content of third reading speeches. He required another member to be focused narrowly on the third reading and he was very disappointed to hear the presiding officer say that he would entertain someone referring to matters not strictly within the content of the bill but referred to in debate. I have sat through quite a considerable amount of the debate on this bill but I have not heard any mention of the particular subject this member has raised. All I ask the member to do is to be consistent with his own requests. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for those comments. The member is right and I am sure the speaker will come back to the contents of the third reading which relates to the bill as it has come back from the Committee of the whole House. The member has 8 minutes to try to do that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Consistent with the Speaker’s ruling I am playing exactly by the rules as laid down in that earlier decision. 
If there is such a danger to public safety by not reducing the blood-alcohol concentration level to 0.05 and if the sky is going to fall in because we do not reduce the level I do not actually understand why the Opposition would be satisfied with just an infringement notice regime as it has suggested. The distinction in penalties acknowledges that the risk is actually lower with the lower blood-alcohol concentration and that is what the 300 or so studies that the Opposition consistently quotes have actually showed: the more alcohol the greater the risk—no real rocket science there. But what those studies did not do—and research will be done following the bill being passed—was answer the following question: how many deaths or serious injuries are caused in New Zealand by drivers who have a blood-alcohol content of between 0.05 and 0.08 where that driver is at fault? None of the research has answered that question which is fundamental to a policy decision and when we gather that information it will enable us to make sensible evidence-based policy decisions. Maybe as Mr Lees-Galloway says the level will in the future go to 0.05 but at least it will do so on evidence not on lots of arm-waving from an Opposition that did not do anything when it had the opportunity to act. 
In the meantime lives will be saved when this bill is passed. Lives will be saved because the blood-alcohol concentration level for younger drivers will go to zero. Lives will be saved because recidivist drink-drivers will have to have a zero blood-alcohol content. Lives will be saved because of the use of alcohol interlocks. Lives will be saved when the driving age goes from 15 to 16 and when there is a harder pathway to full licensing. Safety will be improved by those and the many other matters contained in this bill. Rather than hang my head in shame as Professor Sellman might suggest I do I am holding my head up very high. This is excellent progress. I congratulate the Minister. I thank the officials and the select committee and I commend the bill. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As many speakers before me have said—and I refer to the comments of the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse—Labour supports this bill but we do so with reservations about two specific areas. But as we do support this bill I will start by accentuating the positives. 
Labour supports the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. As Tau Henare mentioned earlier in the debate—and he has a habit of being in the House when I mention him—that issue is a real problem. Labour supports that particular aspect of this bill. Labour also supports the zero limit for drivers under 20. That sends a very clear message—as we thought that lowering the adult blood-alcohol content to 0.05 would have done—to those under 20 that drinking and driving will absolutely and utterly not be accepted by New Zealand as a whole. 
Labour also supports the use of alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. We think it is a great use of modern technology to ensure that those repeat drink-drivers whom I have already spoken about cannot get behind the wheel again. That technology should be utilised whenever possible. As the member for Palmerston North Iain Lees-Galloway suggested earlier a very popular move in this bill is the one that doubles the minimum prison time for drink-driving drug-driving or reckless driving causing death. 
They are positive aspects of this bill. I think I have been very generous in the time I have taken to focus on those aspects and I will now take some time probably against the wishes of Mr Woodhouse to focus on the areas that Labour does not support. We do not support the blood-alcohol level and the increase in the driving age. 
As the Minister said the bill will have a good outcome—those were the words of the Minister—but it should have an excellent outcome. The Minister said he commended the bill to the House because he believes it will have a good outcome for the safety of drivers on our roads and for the general New Zealand public. But this bill was an opportunity to have an excellent outcome—and we do not have that. 
This bill leaves us with a whole lot of question marks. Why did the Minister not lower the blood-alcohol content from 80 to 50 when there is great public support and a weight of research that says it will have an effect? There is a weight of public sentiment out there which we saw in submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that would support lowering the blood-alcohol level back down to 50. 
Why did the Government not do anything in this bill to address the real problems that drink-driving causes on the roads? In 2009 I believe 33 percent of the fatal crashes on our roads were caused by drug-influenced or alcohol-influenced drivers. In 2009 21 percent of accidents with serious injury were caused by drivers who were drunk or alcohol-influenced. What was the human cost? It was 137 lives lost and more than 560 injuries. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many with 0.08? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: My message to Mr Woodhouse is that the Government had a real opportunity to send a clear message to the New Zealand public that drinking and driving would not be tolerated but that opportunity was not taken. 
During the process of this bill why did the Government not take the opportunity to listen to the weight of evidence that came through from the select committee? A submission from Rev. Graham Lamont and 77 others suggested we could make a serious difference in terms of reducing the harm on our roads if we decreased the blood-alcohol limit available to New Zealanders. Why did the Government not listen to a senior official who sent this email to someone in the Prime Minister’s office: “Drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 80 milligrams who are legally entitled to drive right now are significantly affected by the influence of alcohol.”? 
Why did the Minister of Transport who has just returned to the House not listen to his own gut instinct? He has said it is just ridiculous that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine—he is smiling because he knows that I am right—and still legally be entitled to drive on the roads when he knows he would not be able to control a vehicle on the road. Why did he not listen to his own gut instinct? For that matter why did his colleagues not back him? 
Why did the Minister who as we all know is a very keen watcher of the polls not listen to the huge weight of evidence that was floating around at the time? Late last year a UMR Research poll showed that 70 percent of respondents supported lowering the blood-alcohol limit from 80 down to 50. A Research New Zealand poll of 500 people which was published in the  
Otago Daily Times  
in April last year showed that 63 percent supported lowering the adult blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The interesting thing about that survey was that a previous survey by the same outfit showed there was a fifty-fifty split. So there is a significant change in mood as to what New Zealanders want to see from the Government in respect of sending a message to drink-drivers. 
The  
Waikato Times  
published a poll of 418 people last year. It showed that 68 percent wanted the blood-alcohol level lowered from 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres to 50 milligrams. Why is the Government ignoring that popular weight of support? Why is the Government also ignoring the sentiment that came through at the select committee? 
Mr Woodhouse mentioned Professor Sellman in his speech so let me refer to a letter dated 23 October 2010 that Professor Sellman sent to the select committee that considered this bill. He said that the decision not to lower the rate was “an appalling decision by Government to deliberately delay the lowering of the adult level for drink driving from 0.08 to at least 0.05.” He said these words: “Decisions like this make me feel ashamed to be a New Zealander. It makes me feel part of an increasingly backward little nation of plodders and plonkers having previously been a world leader in progressive social change towards a safer and healthier human society.” 
He went on to say: “Lives are going to be unnecessarily lost and severe maiming injuries suffered to innocent New Zealanders that could be prevented over the next two years while research that even researchers are not calling for is undertaken. The cost to the country has been predicted to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.” Professor Sellman is right. I believe that the social cost to the country from drink-driving fatalities and injuries in 2009 was $875 million. That is huge and we have an opportunity to reduce that real human hurt and of course to reduce the financial cost caused by drink-driving on our roads. 
Why did the Government not also take the opportunity to work with Labour when we put forward a bill to do exactly what we are calling for—to lower the rate from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams? Why did it not take the opportunity? We have heard members opposite say that Labour did not do anything about it in 9 years in Government but what happened to the “brighter future” that National talked about? They have an opportunity to supply a brighter future to Kiwis who may go out on the roads and be hit by drink-drivers. 
So what happened to that brighter future? Why did those MPs not back the gut feeling of their Minister who put forward this bill? They could have made sure that they took serious action and sent a real message to New Zealanders about drink-driving. Why did they not take the opportunity? This bill although achieving some positives leaves too many unanswered questions around why Government members did not take any action on drink-driving and why they are lifting the driving age from 15 to 16 years. It is a real lost opportunity. At worst it is gutless and at best it is sad. Although Labour members support this bill we support it with reservations. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This Government is serious about providing the right levers for building safer communities and that includes road safety. The bill has come about as a result of Safer Journeys the Government’s road strategy to 2020. This vision recognises that although it is impossible to prevent all road crashes from happening we can stop many from resulting in death and serious injury. 
The fact is that our progress in this area has lagged and we are behind Australia in many of our statistics. The fact is that each year hundreds of people are killed on our roads almost 3000 are seriously injured and thousands suffer minor injuries. The social and economic impact on our country is absolutely devastating. 
The concerning fact is that young New Zealanders aged between 15 and 24 have a fatality rate that is 60 percent worse than that of Australia and young drivers are overrepresented in our statistics. This bill is aimed at improving the safety of young drivers and giving the courts more options and tougher sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders. The measures that target high-risk drivers include measures such as a zero blood-alcohol limit for repeat drink-drivers and harsher prison sentences for dangerous driving causing death. The offenders at this end of the spectrum are the Government’s first target because of their high contribution to the statistics. This Government will not tolerate persistent high-level offending. 
Young people sadly are overrepresented in the crash statistics and there are a number of measures regarding young drivers in the bill including raising the driving age to 16—our members are certainly all supportive of that—and making a restricted driver’s licence more difficult to obtain. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Environmental Protection Authority Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by making a couple of preliminary observations about Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. The first observation relates to the way in which the legislation is structured and this reflects comments made by Labour in our minority report after the select committee process. The difficulty with what has emerged from what the Minister for the Environment put in front of the House is that rather than a comprehensive strong independent environmental regulator that is able to provide sectoral leadership which is so badly needed in this country we have a piecemeal reform. 
The Minister promised early on that for example regulation of the marine and coastal environment and the activities being conducted in the exclusive economic zone would be within the purview of the Environmental Protection Authority. Well we do not have reference to those responsibilities in the bill. Although the Minister said last year that those powers would be covered in this bill we have a promise from the Minister that there will be further legislation at some point to confer those powers. That is not good enough. It should have been done with this legislation particularly given the massive increase in prospecting and exploration activity that we are seeing off the coast of New Zealand at the moment. There needs to be proper strong central oversight of that activity. There needs to be a body that is responsible for consulting communities and iwi about that activity. 
The Minister makes much of the work that the establishment Environmental Protection Authority has done already in terms of getting big projects going. What is needed is central strong oversight; careful environmental management; and careful monitoring of all that offshore exploratory activity. Before that what is obviously needed is strong consultation with affected communities. One of the reasons we are seeing so much disquiet and objection to existing drilling activity is that there has not been consultation. Affected communities particularly iwi do not feel that they have any sort of stake in the exploration activity that is going on at the moment. I want to hear from the Minister for the Environment if he is able to address the question on why such consultation requirements have not been put into the purposes and objectives of the bill. 
The Environmental Protection Authority should be responsible for consultation. When people hear that we have an Environmental Protection Authority they assume that consultation is one of the core functions the body ought to be undertaking. I know that the Minister tried to get that function into the bill but he has not managed to get that set of activities taken into the work of the authority yet. At least that is the assumption I have made. If there has not yet been a strong attempt to get that set of activities into the work of the authority we should know why and if it is to go in we really need to know when. If we do not have some sort of certainty about this issue the risk as the Minister knows is that we will have a central environmental agency that is weak. We have seen the dangers that result as far as policy making and enforcement are concerned from having a weak central environmental agency. 
We all wish the Environmental Protection Authority well. We want to see a strong independent successful voice that will work as an advocate for the environment. We want to see expertise deployed in the centre that will allow for New Zealand’s incredible environmental potential to be realised. The worry here has to be that because of the odd piecemeal conferral of functions on the Environmental Protection Authority we will not see that potential realised. In particular there will be major worries about public confidence in the entity if all this offshore activity is to go on for a period of time until the Minister can get the central oversight function conferred upon the Environmental Protection Authority and if it is to occur in the current regulatory vacuum. 
We have heard already this week from the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources that the only effective oversight body for offshore exploration at the moment is Maritime New Zealand. Well that is not good enough. It is not good enough because we know that many many entities are interested in ensuring that they can engage in offshore exploration. There should be central oversight and there is not. 
There are two other matters that I want to advert to in this initial contribution and they relate to first of all the general structure of the bill. I have already said that the bill does not give the authority responsibility for oversight of offshore exploration and exclusive economic zone activity and that it should. I hope we will hear from the Minister as to whether and when the authority will be given responsibility for those activities because he has given some undertakings on the issue that have not yet been fulfilled. 
The other odd thing about the way the body is set up is that it takes functions under the bill from different entities. The Environmental Protection Authority will take on the hazardous substances and new organisms functions from the Environmental Risk Management Authority climate registry functions and certain other functions. In order to understand the powers of the Environmental Protection Authority in any particular case one has to read the relevant empowering legislation alongside the particular other Act in question be it the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Resource Management Act or the Climate Change Response Act. It is a clumsy way to require people to understand New Zealand’s environmental law. It is not a good way to promote accessibility of the law. It is not a good way to allow the layperson to be able to understand immediately the environmental statutory requirements in any particular case. 
It would be much better if we were presented with omnibus comprehensive environmental legislation that sets out not only the Environmental Protection Authority’s functions in a comprehensive sense but also an environmental code that the authority is responsible for administering rather than having to go to all these different statutes and statutory instruments. That is the other aspect of the bill that is of concern. One has to go to a lot of delegated legislation and tertiary legislation to understand the requirements of the law in any case. Environmental law ought to be simpler and more accessible than that. 
The final point I want to make relates to the Treaty obligations that are in the bill or rather that are not in the bill; that is the problem. The different environmental statutes that will affect the work of the Environmental Protection Authority all have Treaty clauses in them but they are different Treaty clauses. The Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act have requirements to take into account the principles of the Treaty but they also refer to Te Tiriti so by implication one has to look at the English and Maori versions of the text. However the Conservation Act and the Climate Change Response Act require only giving effect to the principles of the Treaty; there is no reference to Te Tiriti. 
I have tabled an amendment that would remedy that concern. The amendment would expressly require the Environmental Protection Authority to take into account the principles of the Treaty in carrying out its work. I think that would be a much preferable way to proceed rather than to give the authority this four-headed mandate whereby it has to work out on any particular occasion whether it is to give effect to or take into account the principles of the Treaty. 
I am aware that my parliamentary colleague Rahui Katene has also tabled an amendment on this matter. I have indicated to her that we would be supportive of the approach in her amendment. I would have preferred that it had been before the select committee so that people could have made submissions on it. It is unsatisfactory that this sort of thing has to come up this late in the debate. I am a bit sad that the Maori Party was not able to influence National its coalition partner on the question of the Treaty obligations in the bill. But either way whether we go with the Maori Party’s amendment or the one I have tabled I urge the Minister to consider favourably the question of giving the Environmental Protection Authority right from the start an express and clear Treaty obligation given that all other environmental legislation currently on the books in New Zealand does so. 
That point in particular is one that it would be useful to hear a response from the Minister on. Clearly on the other issue I raised—the piecemeal nature of this legislation—it is too late at this stage to fix it but for the Treaty question it would be helpful to hear a response. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 As I prepared for this debate today by sudden good fortune an e-panui newsletter appeared in my in-box. It was a newsletter from the Commission on Environmental Economic and Social Policy chaired by New Zealand’s own environmental expert and indigenous leading academic Aroha Te Paraeke Mead. The newsletter was headed with a statement of vision which said: “A world where equity is at the root of a dynamic harmony between peoples and nature as well as among peoples.” There would not be a better model out there to demonstrate the meaning of these words than the global conference held by this commission earlier this year. The Sharing Power conference was a unique partnership between Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and participants came from right across the globe. 
We come to the Environmental Protection Authority Bill absolutely committed to an ideal of a world where “equity is at the root of a dynamic harmony”. There is absolutely no question that we need to uphold a commitment to this ideal when considering the matters of national significance in this bill. The authority has to deal with such matters as those called in under the Resource Management Act the functions inherent in the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 or some other functions such as the emissions trading scheme under the Climate Change Response Act 2002.  
From the point of view of tangata whenua there is a lot at stake. All of the consultation with tangata whenua has promoted the need for Maori representation on decision-making boards to be increased to at least two representatives and the establishment of a statutory Maori advisory committee. The committee should not be seen as a substitute for local iwi engagement and iwi had a clear preference for the Environmental Protection Authority to be established as a stand-alone Crown agent. 
I am not going to dwell further on the detail of implementation other than to say that we in the Maori Party were concerned to ensure the balance the equilibrium of so many competing priorities. We believe we have achieved this balance with two simple amendments to clause 3 which Mr Chauvel has referred to. They are in the amendment I have tabled which inserts new clause 3A. It begins: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and seeks to maintain opportunities for Maori to contribute to decision making under an environmental Act. Part 2 of this Act establishes the Maori advisory committee. Clause 3A(b) states that all persons exercising powers or functions of the Environmental Protection Authority under an environmental Act shall apply any Treaty of Waitangi provision in that environmental Act. We believe that these two new provisions give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a way that will recognise and respect the responsibilities of the Crown to do the right thing. These provisions do not interfere with any of the specific Treaty provisions in the environmental Acts such as the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Climate Change Response Act 2002. They should not create interpretation difficulties or increase the risk of a judicial review.  
We appreciate the support of the Minister for the Environment and his officials in helping us come to a meeting point where we could agree on a mechanism to actively protect Maori interests and give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We are really pleased to have received the approval of many other parties in this Chamber for our amendment and we thank them for that. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will speak on clause 3 “Purpose” in Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. I will address the purpose clause and the purpose of the new authority. The purpose clause is one of the briefest purpose clauses I have seen. It just states: “The purpose of this Act is to establish an Environmental Protection Authority and to provide for its functions and operation.” I suggest there are actually three real purposes to the Environmental Protection Authority none of which are spelt out in Part 1 of the bill. 
The first is to set up something that sounds great. It is great public relations. National will be able to go into the election and say it has set up a wonderful new great-sounding authority the Environmental Protection Authority. Not many people will actually read the fine print or realise when they look at the functions of the new authority that there is no objective to protect the environment. It sounds great but it actually has no objective whatsoever to protect the environment—quite to the contrary. 
If we read the objective clause we see it is all about the efficient and effective management of New Zealand’s environment which of course is code for setting up an agency that will enable us to undermine the environment. It will do that by enabling the Government through the authority to fast track major projects in New Zealand so that it can circumvent the Resource Management Act. It will enable the Government to ram through the roads of national significance and other things by circumventing the Resource Management Act. That is its major purpose. 
In the last week I have discovered yet another hidden purpose to the Environmental Protection Authority. I realised this only when I read Rodney Hide’s latest paper on smart government or something like that—his latest paper on local government. It says basically that once the Environmental Protection Authority is in place it will be able to take over the regulatory functions of regional councils thus enabling the Government to roll out its agenda for local government one centrepiece of which is to get rid of regional councils. So once we have set up the Environmental Protection Authority we will then say there is no need for regional councils to have those regulatory functions because they will all be taken over by the Environmental Protection Authority. Then we will be able to say that actually there is no need for regional councils at all. That is clearly spelt out in Rodney Hide’s latest local government paper. 
It is no wonder Don Brash changed his mind and decided to keep Rodney Hide in the local government portfolio. If he had read Rodney Hide’s local government paper which he probably did late one of these recent nights he would have been rubbing his hands with glee because the paper is all about implementing ACT’s agenda for shrinking local government and getting rid of as many layers of local government and democracy as possible. It turns out that the Environmental Protection Authority is all part of that agenda because once it is established it will take over the regulatory functions currently done by regional councils. 
I just wanted to spell out the real purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority. I wish it had the objective of protecting the environment; sadly it does no such thing. It is providing a mechanism for the Government to undermine our environment by fast tracking projects that would normally under the present situation attract huge opposition. Major projects such as roads and motorways being bulldozed throughout New Zealand would ordinarily attract huge opposition because they will undermine the environment in so many ways. We have set up this authority to enable the Government to get around the Resource Management Act. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 The establishment by the Environmental Protection Authority Bill of the Environmental Protection Authority is all about creating a strong independent regulatory authority that contrary to Sue Kedgley’s opinion will protect our natural environment. It fulfils National’s election promise and will improve the environmental management system at a national level. Internationally New Zealand is known as a beautiful country and New Zealanders are known to appreciate our great outdoors. The Environmental Protection Authority will help us deliver on our “clean green” image. It will give greater central government direction and more consistency to the management and regulation of the environment. It will bring together a whole range of regulatory functions and provide stronger direction to the environmental roles of regional and district councils. The Environmental Protection Authority will be a one-stop shop for environmental regulatory functions: consenting monitoring and providing technical advice. It will provide more effective efficient and transparent management of regulations in relation to New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources. The authority is a very positive step for New Zealand and for all New Zealanders. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. Labour opposes this bill and we will do so vigorously. I will tell members why. We voted for the bill at its first reading because we believe in democracy. Democracy is about letting communities—local people—have a say in interests that will affect their lives. Our opposition is because we listened; now we will highlight the rationale for our opposition. 
In the explanatory note of the bill it is stated that the Environmental Protection Authority arose from a decision to remove political interference. Well that is a complete joke. As we all know the Minister will have more influence not less and the members of the Environmental Protection Authority whom the Minister will appoint will advise and make recommendations to the Minister regarding how the Minister can use call-in powers that circumvent Environment Court processes. How will that help to ensure that local communities have a say? Providing a formal ministerial mechanism to fast track projects actually circumvents democracy and it is absolutely appalling. Members on this side of the Chamber reiterate that we think it is vital that local people—mum and dad New Zealanders—have an opportunity to have a say in developments that are happening in their communities. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But they do. 
LOUISA WALL 
: They will not have a say in their communities because the Minister will veto them. That is the reality. 
There is no correlation in objectives and functions between the Environmental Protection Authority and the Resource Management Act. That Act under this body plays a significant role as the Minister knows. Again I ask why not. For the Minister it is all about mimicking and minimising the voices of local people. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Again. 
LOUISA WALL 
: That is right. We want and need the Environmental Protection Authority to have functions that actually say it will protect the environment. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to have such a title the Environmental Protection Authority Bill when the bill will not even protect the environment. How ridiculous! The bill of course comes from that side of the Chamber because those Tories over there do not care about communities or about local people having a say. Otherwise they would not put in place processes like this that actually minimise the ability of mum and dad New Zealanders to have a say in the developments that will affect their lives. You do not care. For you it is all about big business— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know that the member is learning on these occasions but whenever she says “you” it refers to the presiding officer at the time. Members cannot use the word “you”. The member can use the words “the members” or “the member” but not the word “you”. 
LOUISA WALL 
: My apologies again Mr Chair. I will refer to the opposition which is them because that is who I am talking about—the opposition. 
Hon Members 
: That’s you. You’re the Opposition. 
LOUISA WALL 
: No I am talking about our opposition which is those members. 
The third thing I will highlight is to ask which voices the Tories want to minimise and silence. Of course they are Maoris are they not? The Government does not want to let Maori voices have a formal opportunity to participate in these decision-making processes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Te Whanau-a-Apanui. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Yes Te Whanau-a-Apanui is the most recent example. Hekia over there might laugh but “heck yeah!” I do not think that her whanau are laughing with her unfortunately for her. It would not surprise anyone that it is Maori voices. Labour will oppose that. Labour vigorously opposes the fact that there is no Treaty clause in this bill. I compliment my colleague on my side of the Chamber the “Hon to be” Charles Chauvel on his amendments. I also say that the Maori Party has been happy and it is wonderful to see that it has put forward an amendment. However we have to question why it has taken those members so long. 
As we know a Maori advisory committee will be paying only lip service which is not mana-enhancing. It certainly does not enhance the mana of hapu and iwi. The reality is that the proposed Maori advisory committee might be able to contribute to the decision making but Rahui will know that if the committee members have something to say there is actually no requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority to listen to them. Is that not really interesting? The Maori advisory committee might want to say things about different issues but the Environmental Protection Authority will not have to listen to it. That is what we have been used to which is why we think we need a Treaty clause to make sure that when Maori say something they are listened to. Maori should be consulted with and listened to. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Along with everyone else. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Yes exactly. I expect that from National I must say— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And ACT. 
LOUISA WALL 
: —and ACT of course—but I do not expect it from the Maori Party. So it is good to see that party finally put forward an amendment that will ensure there is a Treaty clause in this legislation. It used to be a minimum requirement actually. Tariana will know that because she has fought hard over the years to make sure of that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution on some of the points that have been made in the debate on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. I will go through them. The last speaker Louise Wall— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Louisa. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —Louisa—claimed that this bill has a veto power for the Minister. I simply ask her to say which clause. There is no veto. In fact it is very interesting—the only power that existed for a Minister to veto a decision under the Resource Management Act was used by Chris Carter when he vetoed the decision on the Whangamata marina. A National Government repealed that provision because on our side of the House we wanted environmental processes with integrity. In fact there is no power in this bill for any ministerial veto over decisions. I make a further point which is that Ms Wall claimed there were provisions in the bill to cut out the right of communities for iwi and hapu to have a say on a decision. Again I challenge her to say which clause. No such clause exists in this part or this bill. I simply say this Parliament deserves better than those sorts of nonsense contributions that have no reflection of the bill before the House. 
I acknowledge the enormous contribution the Maori Party has made to the bill. In the early stages Pita Sharples and the Maori Party made very strong submissions that they wanted these powers to be considered by an autonomous agency. That is exactly what we have done. An alternative point of view was put forward by officials. National closely working with the Maori Party agreed and that is what is provided for. Rahui Katene has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill that provides for a Treaty clause. The Government will support that provision. It is a complex issue. Let me explain why to the Committee. The principal aspect of the Environmental Protection Authority is picking up administrator functions in the Resource Management Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Ozone Layer Protection Act and the Climate Change Response Act. We do not want to provide legal confusion on a whole lot of sets of decision making. Rahui Katene with her amendment—in my view very wisely—has not changed the respective Treaty provisions in each of those Acts but has made plain that the Environmental Protection Authority has those responsibilities. In my view that is quite sound. 
Charles Chauvel raised a very proper point in his contribution which was that the Environmental Protection Authority should have a role in managing regulatory functions in the exclusive economic zone. I do not think there is a member in this Committee who sat back and looked at the disaster that unfolded in the Gulf of Mexico who did not say that that needed to be addressed. We need to make sure that we have world best practice in New Zealand for dealing with those sorts of risks. Let me say exactly what the Government has done. We had done substantive work in relation to providing a regulatory environment for the exclusive economic zone when that disaster occurred. The Minister of Energy and Resources and I said we should hang on a moment; the work done on that issue was done before that disaster. We needed to kick the tyres to make damn sure we were getting the regulatory provisions right for it so we sought an independent report. That independent report was provided to the Government late last year and officials have been working on a substantive bill. Of course this bill was introduced before that work was done. It is our view that we need to do that very robustly. It is my intention as Minister for the Environment to introduce a bill into the House this year that will provide for the proper role for the Environmental Protection Authority in regulating environmental effects in the exclusive economic zone. I look forward to the support of the House for what is an incredibly important piece of work given that—we note—our ocean area is 16 times the size of our land area. This Government’s view is that we want to be able to utilise the resources in that space but equally we want to do so in a responsible way. 
The last point I wish to make is about some of the views in relation to the functions. The Green Party and a number of others have cried foul and asked why we do not have a set of high-level broad environment principles that apply to the Environmental Protection Authority. I will explain to the Committee exactly why that would be an unnecessary and bad thing to do. We have under the Resource Management Act very long-debated principles of sustainable management. Charles Chauvel will know there have been long debates in the courts about defining what those principles are for the 50000 resource consents per year that come before resource consent decisions. Equally so there is a different provision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. There is another provision in respect of the Climate Change Response Act. There is a further provision under the Ozone Layer Protection Act. If we started putting in the sorts of provision that the Greens or others propose are decision makers making decisions about ozone protection resource management climate change or any of those issues to apply the principles in the base Act this Parliament has agreed to or are they to apply the principles in the Environmental Protection Authority legislation? That would create a legal nonsense. That would not work so I simply ask the Green Party and Labour to reflect on their rhetoric and to think in a thoughtful way about how we can provide the Environmental Protection Authority with clear instructions for how it administers those very important Acts. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take an initial call in the Committee stage on the purpose of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. Of all the bills that have and indeed might come into this House a bill that seeks or purports to establish an Environmental Protection Authority would be a bill that the Greens would support over all others. Indeed we supported the bill to the first reading in the hope—a forlorn hope as it has proven—we could get sufficient movement on the provisions of the bill at the Local Government and Environment Committee so that it might be something we could continue to support. Regrettably that has not happened. The bill in its somewhat amended form is still far short of anything that we could put our name to willingly. 
Over all other things a Green Party that in part grew as the parliamentary wing of the broader environmental movement would seek—indeed it has long been our policy to see—the establishment of an Environmental Protection Authority as ecological wisdom is one of our core principles. Indeed some would have us stick to environmental issues and not engage in other social or economic issues. Of course that is nonsense given that we know that protection of the environment is also protection of our communities and of our people. 
Of all the countries in the world New Zealand is economically reliant on the quality of our environment. If we do not have a clean green environment we have a very very vulnerable economy. Those links are very well made. For that reason it is essential that we establish some sort of well-resourced strongly autonomous authority that has real authority to make decisions and to make determinations in the event that applications are made for developments projects or whatever it might be with an environmental effect—in particular an adverse environmental effect. 
There is a great deal of potential support for an authority and the Minister must be pleased by the quality of the submissions on the bill that came from groups like the Environmental Defence Society the umbrella group Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and numerous smaller but very credible and articulate groups who had opinions about the bill. For so many of them the recurring theme was to question the authority the power and the autonomy of the organisation. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The challenge we put back is to ask where the authority is in the agency given that the status of the agency will be such that it is liable to ministerial direction. The authority is obliged to accept ministerial direction. Of the three levels under the Crown Entities Act this type of organisation is the weakest form of Crown entity that one can have. That is unfortunate. The authority should have some genuine autonomy and be able to stand up to a Minister—be it this or any other Minister who might be seen to be swayed or persuaded for whatever reasons that a particular development is desirable. The agency must genuinely have the authority to say no. We need an organisation that can say no. 
It is our clear belief that the purpose of the authority as the bill is modelled is to be an authority that is empowered to say yes more quickly. We have heard much talk about streamlining efficiency and simplification specifically of the Resource Management Act and those are good things. I do not believe that public processes be they environmental or any other should be deliberately complex convoluted or lead to significant delays for developers or those opposing or supporting development. In this instance however I think the rhetoric about balance between the economy and the environment is purely rhetoric. The framing of the argument that we must achieve balance simply denies the reality that we cannot balance environmental degradation—which tends to be at least long term if not permanent—against some perceived or hoped for short-term economic gain. 
In terms of the purpose of the bill we have decided we will no longer support the bill because there is simply nothing in it that gives us any satisfaction that the authority will be a genuine protection agency. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As I embark on debate on Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill I will comment that I think the bill is a failure not just of the Minister for the Environment but of Cabinet. I am sure the Minister wanted to achieve more but when I look through the bill in the form in which it goes through the Committee stage I see five failures: timing the scope of the bill the budget it carries with it the delivery it brings and the promises that were held for it. 
I take the Minister back to a speech he gave 2 years ago this month to the Planning Institute where he said he wanted to have the Environmental Protection Authority operational by 1 July 2010. So the bill is a year late. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I did. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It is on record that the Minister wanted it up and running in July last year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It is 2011 now. The Minister said that by 1 July 2010 he wanted the authority to be fully operational and expanded not a ministry of five or six staff seconded across from the Ministry for the Environment. A ministry employing seven staff is not the fully operational Environmental Protection Authority that the Minister wanted by 1 July 2010. 
The second failure is the scope of the bill. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has noted in his amendments it was certainly envisaged that the agency would have a range of functions that are certainly not provided for. The Minister has given us an indication that later in the year he wants to bring in some additional scope for the bill in respect of the exclusive economic zone. In the Minister’s speech 2 years ago he was looking at the issue of ocean management which is not mentioned in the bill the implementation of the Waste Minimisation Act and other environmental priorities. This is the Environmental Protection Authority and those are environmental priorities but they are not mentioned in the bill and therefore are not being given the duty of care we envisaged from the Environmental Protection Authority. 
I note from commentary in the  
Select Committee News 
 of 18 June 2010 that the Minister was saying that 40 staff associated with administration of the emissions trading scheme would be coming across to the authority. I know there are about 90 staff coming across from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That is 130 staff. Where is the rest of the staff to do the big tasks for the environment? I understand that the staffing level is estimated at 140. There is also the fast-track mechanism. So I cannot see that there is any additional resource. It is simply a carry-over; existing staff are being put into a new agency. Where is the brave new world for the environment that was going to be created from the Environmental Protection Authority as the Minister heralded in the Bluegreens document of 2006? The authority was going to create a brave new world for the environment and it was going to be allied with a ministry for sustainable development which never emerged. It absolutely disappeared in the process. What we have come back to is an Environmental Protection Authority the purpose of which is defined by the bill as “to establish an Environmental Protection Authority and to provide for its functions and operation.” 
Compare and contrast that with the objectives goals and functions of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States which was a brave model. I have to say it became a tainted model because President George W Bush put people in charge who had come out of organisations like Monsanto and the mining industry who are not exactly going to be environmental warriors. I know we are not going down that track with the appointments that will be made to head this Environmental Protection Authority—well one hopes not. But the objectives of the Environmental Protection Agency in the States were to address clean air and global climate change to have clean and safe water to have land preservation and restoration to have a commitment to healthy communities and ecosystems and to have compliance and environmental stewardship. 
Where are those objectives in the bill? There is no reference to those kinds of objectives. They should be at the heart of the bill because the Environmental Protection Authority is the agency that should be delivering on those objectives. If those objectives are not specified in the bill how on earth can the handful of officials few as they are who are not going to be transferred over who are not going to be tied up continuing the duties of the Environmental Risk Management Authority under another name who are not going to be managing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—and who actually might have some capacity to deliver on all those brave environmental objectives set out in the Bluegreens agenda? How are the officials going to deliver on those objectives if they are not spelt out in the legislation the officials are required to operate under? It is a greatly disappointing document to say the least. 
We wanted to see a strong Environmental Protection Authority. It is absolutely essential to have a strong Environmental Protection Authority but it has to be resourced it has to be given the leadership and it has to be given the principles goals and objectives that it will work to. Otherwise the chances are that it will not deliver. It will not deliver for the environment. The track record of the Minister for the Environment on these matters is concerning to us all. I note the recent delivery of the Land and Water Forum report a process I utterly applaud. It absolutely picked up the model that had been developed in Canterbury in respect of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—led by Environment Canterbury before its demise as a democratic organisation. I absolutely support the Land and Water Forum and the bringing together of all of those parties. But what was the Minister’s prognosis for what will happen from here on in respect of the recommendations made? He said it will take “several years” to implement the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum—several years. What will happen in the interim to the waterways of my province of Canterbury when we have a doubling of the production at the Synlait milk powder plant a plant very close to the township of Dunsandel which has had E. coli in its water supply for the last 18 months? What will happen to the water around the plant Fonterra is going to build out at Darfield—a 2 million litres a day processing plant? What will happen to protect the waterways of my province in the several years of interim? 
The Minister has often used the phrase “the long 9 years of the Labour Government” in terms of its supposed inaction on water. The policy statement on fresh water landed on his desk as he became the Minister; 2½ years on nothing has happened with it other than his referring it kicking it for touch to the Land and Water Forum. Now the Minister is saying it will take several years. So there will be 9 long years perhaps of inaction before the Minister actually gets something into place. I would like to know what the Environmental Protection Authority will do. What tools has it got what staffing resources has it got and what objectives has it got to deliver on environmental outcomes that will improve the water quality of my province and the rest of New Zealand over the next several years while we wait for the Minister to start implementing the national freshwater policy statement and the recommendations of the Land and Water Forum? 
It is enormously disappointing to those of us with a real and genuine commitment to environmental policy to see this bill come through because high hopes were built for it. All that we are actually seeing is a continuation. I think Colin James in an article in various newspapers in January hit the nail on the head when he said that the Minister is committed to environmental policy but the problem is he does not have the upper hand in Cabinet. The economic growth cabal is in charge. It wants fast-track growth it wants to see the roading projects pushed through under urgency it wants to see the new growth in the dairy industry without environmental checks and balances and in the interim the environment will have to pay the price. That is an appalling outcome and consequence. It puts at risk our very basis as a nation because we trade every day in the international market place on the premise that we are clean and green and that we are a nation with an absolute commitment to environmental outcomes. We trade on that reputation daily we trample on that reputation daily and this bill very disappointingly will not provide any halt or any sense of balance to that growth record. 
It is absolutely a disappointment to us that we are not seeing any real commitment of funding any real commitment of policy or any real commitment of objectives that would see some reversal of some of the environmental declines that we have suffered as a nation. We all want to see the outcomes of sustainable growth. We all want to see our farmers able to access water as long as they do so as responsible environmental stewards. We want to see that. This bill could have been the mechanism which began the process of turning back the clock on old-time practices—using the environment simply as a tool for production and not regarding it as our greatest treasure and taonga—and really began a process that said to New Zealand that we will uphold our environmental values. They are truly important to all our futures. 
The people who will suffer the most from this bill not starting to deliver on that are those in the farming community because they are the ones who on the first analysis will be penalised by international markets as they begin to see that our environmental track record has not improved and will not improve for several years. This is the bill we had hoped would see the turn-round of that. It is enormously disappointing to see it come through in a way that simply allows the continuation of pro-growth strategies without the environmental consequences being taken into account. I think Bill English has won the debate within Cabinet. There should have been real resource for this bill and this agency. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with considerable disappointment that I speak in the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. I am disappointed because this should have been a bill that every single member of this House with the exception of the ACT members would support. This was an opportunity for the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment to make his mark on environmental protection in New Zealand. It was an opportunity for him to stand up for the things that he pledged and promised to support up and down the country in the run-up to the last election—and in fact to the election before that—and to put some reality to the farce of the Bluegreens. He would have got the support of the House had he had genuine legislation that offered better environmental protection. 
My colleague Brendon Burns the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central was pretty generous. He said in the Chamber just moments ago that the Minister does care about the environment and is passionate about it—that is pretty generous—but that he just got rolled at Cabinet. Well we could give the Minister the benefit of the doubt but if others had been in his position they might not have signed the Cabinet paper that introduced to this House such mickey mouse legislation. They might not have signed that Cabinet paper. That option is always open to the Minister. The officials will come up with all sorts of ideas. The Minister clearly knew that he would be rolled had he put up a strong and comprehensive package of environmental protection because that is not what his Cabinet colleagues want. So instead he settled for this frankly embarrassing legislation. We were hopeful that there would have been some robust debate at the Local Government and Environment Committee and that the Minister might have been able to gather some steel in his spine and offer some Supplementary Order Papers that strengthened the provisions. It was not the case. 
That should not be a surprise though because National has an abysmal record in the 2½ years that it has been in Government. The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality for example have been pushed right out to 2018 and as a Cantabrian I know very well the huge and negative health impact that the lack of air quality standards has on the health of individuals. The Minister does not seem to give a toss about that which is surprising given that his benchmate is the Minister of Health. It is a wonder that the Minister of Health did not mention to him that by pushing out those air quality standards we are literally endangering people’s lives and well-being. The Minister was responsible for and seems to be quite proud of watering down the emissions trading scheme so that basically we have polluters being rewarded for bad behaviour rather than having financial penalties attached to it. Of course the Minister and his personal friend Gerry Brownlee tried to open up schedule 4 parts of our country to mining. That caused an eruption a public outcry up and down the country. There were more people on the streets in Auckland than we have seen for decades protesting the proposal of the Minister and his colleagues to have mining on schedule 4 land in New Zealand. 
So I do not know why we would be surprised that this bill is as poor as weak and as frustrating as it is. It could have been a really big opportunity for our environmental protection to be strengthened but instead the Minister has just thrown away that chance. 
Another disappointment I have is that Chris Auchinvole the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered this bill has not yet taken a call. If he is embarrassed about what happened earlier in the day in the Committee stage then I would not be surprised. If I were him I would be furious. I would be hopping mad to see a member of a tiny party which has recently become smaller come into this Committee and tell all of us that the Minister has agreed to an amendment that the select committee did not have the opportunity to discuss. That party is in coalition with National but it did not even give the chairperson of the select committee any respect at all—a respect that in my view he deserves because I have watched him chair select committees through bumpy times—by having the amendment discussed at the select committee. That is a disgraceful way to treat colleagues. I say to Mr Auchinvole that if he is hopping mad then I share his frustration. I think the chairperson of the select committee should share his frustration with the Minister. 
To talk more specifically though the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene inserts new clause 3A into Part 1. I am gobsmacked that we now have introduced at this stage with no proper parliamentary scrutiny an absolutely brand new definition for the Environmental Protection Authority to have to respond to. This clause says the Environmental Protection Authority will have to “recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi”. What does that mean? There is not a single piece of legislation in New Zealand law that uses the words “take appropriate account”. This amendment introduced on the floor of the Chamber with the Minister’s agreement but without select committee discussion or officials’ advice introduces a brand new test for a brand new authority that does not even have as one of its functions the protection of the environment. 
I want to hear from the woman who should be the leader of ACT Heather Roy. I want to hear from her what her party thinks about a brand new test coming in. I also ask the Minister what “take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi” means. I challenge the Minister to take a call and put on record what those words mean. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Already have. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: He is wrong again. He has not explained what those words mean nor has the member who exposed to the Committee the knowledge that the Minister had already agreed to this shonky backroom deal undermining not just the chairperson of the select committee but the entire select committee process. It is not acceptable for a new test to be introduced in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi particularly by a party that lambasted Labour when we were in Government about our provisions in terms of recognition of the Treaty. 
That is why I support my colleague Charles Chauvel’s amendment. It is consistent with other legislation. It will not need to be retested. It will not need to be argued about and debated and considered. There is a tried and true meaning of the words in his amendment and in my view it is much more sensible. I do not know why the Maori Party which says it wants to enhance the mana of Maori in this Parliament would put forward such a weak amendment. The words “take appropriate account” are frankly an embarrassment to the mana of Maori. Is that what the founding document of our country has come to with a party that says it enhances the mana of Maori? I ask Mrs Katene what “take appropriate account” means. I have no idea and nor will the Environmental Protection Authority. 
This amendment is an embarrassment. I challenge the Maori Party to think again and withdraw this weak amendment which has been put forward only because the Minister found somebody he could get his way with and could win a debate with instead of Cabinet which clearly rolled him on anything that would have given proper strength to environmental protection. The only reason that this amendment in the name of Rahui Katene is here is that the Minister agreed with it. I challenge Mrs Katene to withdraw the amendment and put the name of the Maori Party and its voting weight behind the amendment of Charles Chauvel. That is the proper way to recognise the Treaty particularly in an area as important as environmental considerations and process. 
It would have been far preferable not to have such a mickey mouse outfit. The Minister agreed and explained to the Committee that most of the policy work that is required in order to have a comprehensive framework of environmental protection is yet to be done but at some time in the future that work will be done. We will then get another bill before the House that will give proper environmental protection. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that the question be now put. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I recognise that it is your absolute discretion as to whether to put this question but I wonder whether you would hear me on one matter. It relates to the fact that as Ruth Dyson pointed out in her contribution this is the only time that the House will have the opportunity to debate this new and novel Treaty clause. I implore you to allow one or two more calls on it because this debate is the only parliamentary scrutiny that this clause will get. I would very much like to be able to speak in a bit more detail about it. I think it would be really important— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I appreciate the member’s concern. I have been listening very carefully to the debate both before I came into the Chamber and currently. Every member in the Chamber seeking a call has had one and the member himself has had two calls. There are only three clauses in this part. I understand what the member is saying but I have listened to the debate and I have determined that it is time that I put the question on the closure motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is that Rahui Katene’s typescript amendment to insert new clause 3A be agreed to. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a point of clarification. My understanding was that the alternative amendment on this question was lodged before this amendment. Would that not entitle it to be voted on first? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: This amendment is to insert new clause 3A. Chronologically it occurs earlier in the bill so the question is put on this amendment first. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 3: 
3ATreaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) 
In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi— 
(a)section 17 establishes the Maori Advisory Committee to advise the Environmental Protection Authority on policy process and decisions of the EPA under an environment Act; and 
(b)the EPA and any person acting on behalf of the EPA must comply with the requirements of an environmental Act in relation to the Treaty when exercising powers or functions under that Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; Maori Party 2; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61 Noes 59. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 5: 
5AAct to give effect to Treaty of Waitangi 
This Act must so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the point of order is but members know that votes shall be held in silence. In the past members have been ejected from the Chamber for the kinds of comments that are currently being made. I do not want to have to do that. I just caution members that votes will be held in silence; otherwise I will adopt that other approach. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Environmental Protection Authority 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This is the part of the legislation that deals with the actual set up of the Environmental Protection Authority its membership its board provisions its objectives and its relationship with the Minister. It includes clause 7 which sets out that the authority is to be a Crown entity. It also includes clause 11 which sets out the authority’s objectives and clause 12 which sets out the authority’s functions. I mention those three clauses in particular because there are amendments lodged in my name that would amend each of those clauses. I would like to speak to the issues that each of those amendments raises. 
We have already heard in the debate on Part 1 that the Environmental Protection Authority is not a comprehensive environmental regulator that the Committee is debating the creation of. The Minister said that it is proposed to give the authority further functions at a later date. That will occur we are told both by additional legislation and by ministerial direction. We have already said that it would have been much better if rather than having this piecemeal adding-in approach from time to time the Minister had brought comprehensive legislation to the House. That is not what has happened and as a result the law is left in a confusing and unsatisfactory state. This is something that the submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee pointed out time and time again. 
There were many other logical functions that ought to have been carried out by the Environmental Protection Authority and a couple were added in by the select committee. There were the ozone layer protection functions and the import and export functions that were formerly carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development. But so much more could be done by the Environmental Protection Authority. The Waste Minimisation Act could have been brought within the ambit of the authority. That would be a natural and sensible thing to have done. The authority could be the body that would urge the Minister to get on with creating the product stewardship schemes which members on this side of the Chamber would so love to see under that Act so that this country could have at last decent recycling waste minimisation and reuse policies put in place. There are many more additional functions under the Resource Management Act that could and should be carried out by the Environmental Protection Authority. We have already talked about the coastal and marine management issue and the exclusive economic zone issue. 
Like my colleague Brendon Burns I take the Minister at his word. I know that he is somebody who wants to see the right thing done in this area but I am concerned that it has not been done. I am concerned that the delay in bringing those functions into the Environmental Protection Authority while there is all the extra activity going on in our coastal and marine areas around minerals exploitation will lead to a loss of public confidence in the new environmental protection agency from the outset because that body does not have any authority to deal with those issues. As we heard from Sue Kedgley in the debate on the earlier part that is a real problem. 
When people hear the expression “Environmental Protection Authority” they think that is a body that will be protecting the environment— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: There are so few functions I say to the Minister that inhere to that authority from the outset that it cannot be said that that is what we are creating today. 
We have already talked about the manner in which the Environmental Protection Authority is intended to function. The Minister has taken functions away from other entities like the Environmental Risk Management Authority. He has taken the hazardous substances and new organisms function away and he is putting it into the Environmental Protection Authority. Likewise the Climate Change Response Act responsibilities will come from the Ministry for the Environment and elsewhere and they will go into the Environmental Protection Authority. What we will have is environmental law by hotchpotch. The Minister will be creating under this regime a necessity as I said earlier to read with the Environmental Protection Authority legislation the particular piece or pieces of other environmental legislation that are in question. 
The other problem is there is this provision in the legislation that will allow the Minister to direct the Environmental Protection Authority to carry out additional functions from time to time. The assurance we have had from the Minister and from his officials is that these will be only minor ancillary functions. No substantive new functions that require legislative amendment will go to the authority as a result of ministerial direction. It is: “Trust me. We’ll do it the right way”. I see the Minister smiling because he knows that the problem is there is just no bright line in our law between a substantive and an ancillary function. I expect that when the Minister takes a call he will point to some provisions in the legislation that touch on this matter but it really is not satisfactory that new functions should go to the Environmental Protection Authority simply by political judgment and ministerial fiat. It should be the legislation that founds the authority that gives it decent and comprehensive functions from the outset. 
There is an amendment tabled on this matter. It would add in a couple of functions for the authority from the outset. It would remedy the failure to deal with coastal and marine management as well as environmental management of the exclusive economic zone by putting those functions directly into the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority right from the outset. I do not pretend that that is a substantive answer. I accept that further legislation would be required in order to accomplish that fully. But the Minister has told us that he has a report. This is an urgent matter: the drilling is happening. The exploratory licences are being granted. The public do not want to wait for a proper regulator and a proper body that is designed to be in charge of public consultation on these issues. They want to see that happening now. There is no reason with the constitution of the Environmental Protection Authority by the legislation that this House is now accomplishing why we cannot do that. There is a separate amendment that would add the administration of the Waste Minimisation Act into the functions of the authority and I commend those two amendments to the Committee. 
The next point that concerns me in respect of this part is the actual function or responsibility of the Environmental Protection Authority. As I said before when people hear the expression “Environmental Protection Authority” the immediate thing that springs to mind is a body with comprehensive and independent regulatory powers over the environment. The problem here is that this body does not even have an express responsibility to protect the environment. Nowhere in the statute will that requirement be found. That is why I have put forward an amendment that will insert in clause 11 an express objective for the authority which will be to protect maintain and enhance New Zealand’s environment. It is a crying shame that the Minister did not think that that overarching objective ought to have been in the bill from the start. The failure in my view to do that speaks volumes about the commitment of this administration to the fundamental importance of protecting and maintaining the integrity of the environment. I say to the Minister that we must have something of that nature in this legislation. A strong objective must be put in from the start; otherwise his work will be in large part for nothing because of the public confidence issue that I referred to earlier. 
The final amendment I have put forward that is relevant to this part relates to the independence of the Environmental Protection Authority. There are three types of Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act: Crown agents which have to give effect to Government policy when directed under the relevant legislation by the responsible Minister; autonomous Crown entities which have to have regard to Government policy; and independent Crown entities which cannot be directed by the responsible Minister unless there is an express power. 
The problem we have here is that it is quite obvious that the legislation sets up the Environmental Protection Authority as something other than an autonomous Crown entity. In fact in respect of some of the powers in the Act such as the hazardous substances and new organisms powers it involves taking authority closer to rather than away from the Crown. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call to respond to two of the points made by Charles Chauvel. The first is a point that has also been made by the Green Party members. Why they ask do we not put a specific environmental protection function into all the decisions that the Environmental Protection Authority makes? The very simple answer to that is this. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: An overarching requirement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes but let us just test that. Would that achieve the objective? I put these questions to members of the Opposition. Does the Resource Management Act protect the environment? Yes it does. Does the Ozone Layer Protection Act protect the environment? Of course it does. Does the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act protect the environment? Of course it does. [ 
Interruption 
] So the issue I put to Steve Chadwick who is interjecting is this: if we have a different set of objectives in this legislation when the authority comes to perform its functions in those other Acts we will end up with a legal mess. If Labour wants to create that sort of legislation well it would be pretty typical but that is not where this Government stands. That is why that is not a sensible proposition. 
I refer to the second approach and that is in respect of the exclusive economic zone and Charles Chauvel’s amendment. I have a simple question for him. Do we really think that the marine environment would be better managed? Let me tell members what the amendment would do. Who is responsible for managing the fish if we say it is the role of the Environmental Protection Authority to manage the exclusive economic zone? All the amendment says is “to carry out the environmental management of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone”. What a mess! We would have the Environmental Protection Authority and the Ministry of Fisheries under a whole number of Acts with functions. What about marine mammals? They are the responsibility of the Department of Conservation. So what is Labour saying about the department’s role in protecting marine mammals? 
The reality is that if this Committee votes for the amendment that has been put forward by Charles Chauvel we will end up with an awful mess whereby neither the authority nor the Department of Conservation nor the Ministry of Fisheries—[ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick says that somehow that would not be the case. This legislation sets out the functions very clearly between those bodies and if members vote for this amendment who I ask Steve Chadwick will be responsible for fisheries? There is silence. Labour has no idea. The amendment has not been properly thought through and that is why National will not be supporting these sorts of amendments which are nothing more than political grandstanding. National will do the hard yards to come up with really good legislation that will properly protect the exclusive economic zone and provide the sort of environmental framework that this country deserves. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow on from the sophistry of the Minister for the Environment in respect of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. The Minister pretends that this bill will deliver for the environment. This is a doughnut piece of legislation for a doughnut agency. There is a thin perimeter of staffing and cash and a great big hole in the middle. The bill should be called the “Environmental Projection Authority Bill” because it does not deliver. It might hold some hope but it is certainly not delivering for the environment. 
The Minister has suggested that the exclusive economic zone legislation cannot be protected by the Environmental Protection Authority but that differs from what he told the Local Government and Environment Committee back in June of last year. The comment I will read is as reported in  
Select Committee News. 
 He said that a report on the issue of the exclusive economic zone would be ready in August and his preference was “to have that EEZ legislation and the EPA legislation as one package because it is our view that the EPA will be the proper place for regulating environmental activities.” 
So we come back to this doughnut bill and this doughnut agency with a great big gaping hole in the middle of it and that is the exclusive economic zone Antarctica and a whole range of other environmental activities that should be the subject of scrutiny and involvement by this agency but are missing in action. That is because the Minister could not deliver and that is because his Cabinet colleagues want growth. They want to see the seabed mined and they do not want any agency to stand in their way. The growth agenda will take precedence no matter what. The Minister might have thought he might be able to turn them round but this bill is testimony to the fact that he has failed miserably in that task. It does not hold to even the promises that he projected he would be delivering on. The bill is an abject failure in his responsibilities as the steward for the environment on behalf of the Government. He has failed to deliver on it and it is there in black and white in the difference between what he was telling the select committee the very select committee that considered this bill and what has come through in this bill. 
It is a nonsense to talk about how we should not spell out the functions and objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority. I go back to the model that he cited himself in the past the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States which was set up in the 1970s. It had six goals and they were protecting and improving air quality so that we can breathe safely; reducing greenhouse gas intensity; ensuring drinking water is safe; restoring and maintaining oceans— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In the 1970s— 
BRENDON BURNS 
:  That is right and it is as valid and more valid today as it was in the 1970s. Issues like climate change were barely perceptible in the 1970s and now they are critical issues that have to be faced and the Minister is not delivering the flagship for his environmental stewardship that this agency was supposed to be. In fact the Minister has delivered a dinghy not a flagship. It is just a tiny little vessel floating on an ocean that it has no responsibility for. It has no responsibility for the oceans which was to be a core component of what the Minister was going to do to improve our environmental record. 
We are considering Part 2. The objectives and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are so limited as to be breathtaking in their audacity. There is absolutely no reference to environmental outcomes no reference to objectives no goal setting and no vision. There is nothing in this bill that says this is an agency we can put confidence and faith in. If we had concerns in the past about our record as a nation in terms of our environmental stewardship the Environmental Protection Authority was to be the agency we could trust to deliver and it is just not there; there is not even a reference in the bill. There is no capacity for anybody to stand up and say to this Minister: “You set out these goals and objectives.” He did that with his Bluegreen agenda 4 or 5 years ago. It was the great big bright hope for the environment. All I can say in that respect is that blue-green is the most toxic cyanobacteria that we could find in New Zealand’s waterways today. It is a very fitting analogy because that Bluegreen agenda which was to deliver a functioning Environmental Protection Authority with high environmental outcomes is not delivered. A ministry of sustainable development has not been delivered. This Environmental Protection Authority will be toothless it will be powerless and it will be budget-less. The bill simply transfers the functions and duties of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and about 10 other staff most of whom will be involved in fast tracking motorway projects and the like. Where are the people to deliver the environmental objectives that the Minister spelt out so boldly 4 or 5 years ago? 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 We have heard some comments from the Opposition about the Environmental Protection Authority Bill not being for the protection of the environment. I want to challenge the Opposition members. In 9 years in Government they did absolutely nothing structural with the Ministry for the Environment. There was absolutely no progress in 9 years. 
All of a sudden we have a Government actually willing to do something and willing to make some changes to optimise the protection of our environment by having a very clear and integrated system in relation to the environment. It has divided responsibility so that the Ministry for the Environment will have clear responsibility for policy the Environmental Protection Authority will have responsibility for regulatory functions and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will be the auditor. Members on this side of the Chamber see that change as a nice flow with the three different organisations having clear responsibilities. Unfortunately in the 9 years that those guys on the other side of the Chamber were in power they did not make any changes at all. 
Speaking as the member of Parliament for Taupo I say the environment is absolutely critical to the economic growth of my electorate. I am sick to death of Opposition members talking about members on this side of the Chamber having only an economic growth agenda. Hello? We cannot separate the environment from our economic agenda. I will give members some examples. If we look at forestry if we look at farming and if we look at tourism we see that they are fundamental to economic growth in my electorate. I will give another example: geothermal. We are leading the world in renewable energy. Where is a lot of that generation centred? It is in the Taupo electorate. 
What does this legislation enable? It enables the creation of the Environmental Protection Authority which enables consenting processes to be far more efficient than they ever were under the reign of members on that side of the Chamber. 
Brendon Burns 
: Fast tracking. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Does that member know what fast tracking means in this environment? It means jobs. If members on that side of the Chamber are so interested in creating jobs I would have thought they would be interested in projects that create jobs: create jobs in their construction create jobs on an ongoing basis and create wealth for the iwi that have joint ventures in the geothermal projects. It sounds like a bit of a win to me in terms of economic growth. But no members on that side do not want to have something nice and simple so that we have clear responsibilities. 
Let us go back for a bit of a reminder. There are clear responsibilities. The Ministry for the Environment looks after policy the Environmental Protection Authority looks after regulation and provides some nice national direction for regional and district councils and finally the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a very important role provides the audit function. It fits together very nicely and fits perfectly with the Bluegreens’ vision for New Zealand of growing the economy and protecting the environment. For my electorate I am very clear that those two visions go hand in hand. I am stunned when the members on that side of the Chamber talk about this being a piecemeal approach. It is very integrated it is very logical it fits together and we have national direction. 
What about issues like national policy statements which did not come out in 9 years of those members in Government? All of a sudden we finally have an authority able to provide some guidance and regional councils will actually have some direction—after how long? Nine years. 
I am very proud of this legislation. It is a very strong step forward. It is the second phase of the resource management reforms that have been so critical for jobs in my electorate. That is why I am proud of this legislation and that is why it is so important. If we can get a few more new jobs up and running not just in the construction phases of some of these critical projects but on an ongoing basis then that is good for Taupo. That is why I am proud of the legislation. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I thank the speaker who just resumed her chair Louise Upston for a very spirited delivery. I have to say the spirit made up for the lack of substance shall we say. Good spirit is always welcome at this time on a Thursday. 
I will reference some of the language the member used. She talked about the three organisations or three elements apparently of the framework that has been structured. She talked about responsibility and she is quite right: the Environmental Protection Authority will carry a burden of responsibility. She talked about it having some ability to direct policy. I point the member to the word “authority”. I agree entirely that this organisation will have some responsibility and it may have some power to direct but it will have no authority. The title is a misnomer which is a point we have made already. 
I reference clause 7 entitled “EPA is Crown entity”; I suspect an “a” is missing in there. I question why of the three available levels of independence the lowest level of independence or autonomy has been chosen for this entity. I reference the Greens’ minority report. Under section 7 of the Crown Entities Act the authority will be constituted as a Crown entity and under section 7(1)(a) of that Act the entity “must give effect to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister.” This entity will clearly be a creature of the Minister. It puts the primary direction of the Environmental Protection Authority into the realm of ministerial policy. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a correction to an answer I gave in question No. 6 earlier today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: During one of my answers in question No. 6 earlier today I advised the House that I had met with Dr Brent Layton of the Electricity Authority yesterday when in fact I met with Dr Layton on Monday of this week. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.