Volume 661 Week 37 - Tuesday 23 March 2010 
Volume 661 Week 37 - Tuesday 23 March 2010 
[Volume:661;Page:9667] 
Tuesday 23 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Raiha Lady Mahuta 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the recent passing of Raiha Lady Mahuta. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this Parliament mark the passing of Raiha Lady Mahuta.  
This morning I was informed of the passing of Lady Raiha who was a quiet but effective leader and negotiator for Waikato-Tainui. On behalf of this House I offer my sincere sympathy to the whanau friends and colleagues of Lady Raiha. 
Lady Raiha was best known to many of us for her Waikato-Tainui links but she also acknowledged her northern tribal connections. She studied physiotherapy at Otago University in the 1960s where she met her future husband Robert Mahuta. Following the death of her husband Sir Robert in 2001 Lady Raiha took on a leading role in Waikato-Tainui affairs focusing particularly on the Waikato River claim. She was passionate about her cause and she was determined to complete the task left to her by her late husband. In doing so she was respectful of others’ views but forthright with her own. She was open and honest during the process. 
Just last Friday I spent some time with Lady Raiha in Hamilton. Although I did not know at the time that she was in her final days I was struck by how Lady Raiha maintained her dignity and her commitment to the Waikato-Tainui cause despite her illness. Lady Raiha was 67 years old. She will be greatly missed by the people of Tainui and particularly by her children: Tukaroto our parliamentary colleague Nanaia and Tipa. Lady Raiha also had six grandchildren. Our thoughts are with Lady Raiha’s whanau at this time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
:  
E te Kaiwhakawa o te Whare ki a tatau katoa e mahi atu i konei e tautoko te Ropu Reipa nga korero o te Kaiwhakahaere o te Kawana. Na te mea i roto i etahi o tatau Ngai Maori e mohio atu kei te makuku haere te whenua o te motu mo tenei hinga mo tenei wahine rangatira i whai kaha atu a muri a nga take e pa ana ki te pai o tatau. Na te mea ahakoa he wahine no te taitokerau e tu atu hei kaikorero mo te Kuini Maori i era tau a muri. I tae atu i te tu a te Kingi Tuheitia i reira ke a Te Raiha e manaaki atu nga take. Na te mea e mohio atu tatau mai i ra ano he wahine pukumahi ki te whakatikatika i nga ahua mo te rawakore. He wahine e kaha ana mo te whakatikatika te paru i roto i te wai o te awa o Tainui. He tino wahine hoki e poipoi atu ona mokopuna. 
Kei te tangi hoki te ngakau mo ona tamariki a Tukaroto raua ko Nanaia me Tipa. Na te mea hoki e mohio atu tatau he wahine pukumahi. Ahakoa i reira ke tona hoa rangatira a Kotahi a Bob e mahi ana i nga mahi e tu atu a Raiha i runga i tona tu anake mo tona kaha ki te manaaki atu i ona whanau whanui. Na te mea hoki e tuku aroha atu tatau o tenei ropu nga kanohi Maori i konei mo te rere haere o tenei kuia wahine. Me ki penei tonu ahakoa te karangatanga o Waikato taniwha rau mo to ratau nama mo te he piko he taniwha kia pai hoki to haere e Rai kia tae kaha atu koe ki to hau kainga i te wahi tata nei ki Te Oneroa-a-Tohe. No reira tena tatau tena tatau katoa. 
[ 
Mr Speaker and all those who work here the Labour Party supports the statement made by the Prime Minister. That is because Maori know that this country will be drenched with tears for the passing of this noble woman who worked diligently behind the scenes in matters pertaining to our wellbeing. Although Lady Raiha was from the far north she spoke on behalf of both the Maori Queen and King Tuheitia on various matters. We also know that for a long time she strove to improve the lives of the poor and made great efforts to clean up the Waikato River. She also cared a lot for her grandchildren.  
I express my sympathies to her children Tukaroto Nanaia and Tipa. We all know that she was a hard-working woman. Despite the presence of her husband Sir Robert Lady Raiha stood for various causes and cared for her extended families. Therefore we of the Labour Party and its Maori members offer our condolences for the passing of this matriarch. Despite the saying of Waikato which states that at every corner of the river there is a leader we say farewell to you Lady Raiha may you reach your home near Ninety Mile Beach. So greetings and thank you all 
.] 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand here to support the motion. First I acknowledge the passing of Bevan Tipene-Matua: father friend environmentalist and rangatira. We join with others today kia ora to mourn the passing of Lady Raiha. Ka maharatia e au te wahine rongonui ko Raiha. E kui tautoko katoa mai te ringa a Whina Kupa ka pakari ana ta korua wairua moe mai ra. 
[ 
I will remember this famous woman Raiha. Dear lady your total support and that of Whina Cooper has been spiritually uplifting. Rest well 
.]  
Lady Mahuta was a woman who was passionate about her whenua and her awa her whanau and her iwi. She played a leading role in negotiating with the Crown which is always difficult on behalf of Waikato-Tainui in signing the settlement deal which provided for a significant fund for the cleaning up of the polluted Waikato River and for a river co-management arrangement. Her commitment to the environment was an inspiration to us and her ability to weave together kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga and to make it understandable to the Crown and to others was an exceptional skill one that will be sorely missed. 
She was a courageous negotiator and a courageous woman and I know she will be deeply missed. The Green Party sends our heartfelt prayers and love to our colleague Nanaia to her whanau to her hapu and to her iwi. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party on this sad day to mark the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta and to extend our condolences particularly to Nanaia Mahuta our parliamentary colleague and to the wider Mahuta family. My most recent meeting with Lady Raiha was on the vexed issue of the boundaries of the new Auckland Council and Lady Raiha Mahuta along with Sir William Birch put the case most forcefully for shifting the boundaries north. On that day we did not agree nor did the Government but I have to say that throughout the discussion Lady Raiha conducted the argument with the utmost respect and dignity that one has come to expect with this wonderful lady. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
:  
E te piki amokura o Ngapuhi kua katohia nei koe e te ringa kaha o aitua. E kore e mutu nga mihi ki a koe mo o whiwhinga i te ao turoa nei. Haere ki to iwi ki te nuinga o te tangata. Oti atu e. 
[ 
Oh my beloved one of Ngapuhi you have been plucked by the strong arm of death. Tributes to you for your achievements in this world will never end. Go to your people and the majority that await never to return 
.] 
Today the tears of Tongariro will flow into the Whanganui River. The connection we make as river people is an intimate one; through w’akapapa we have been bound together. The Waikato iti which is a source of the great Waikato River starts on Tongariro maunga. Both the Whangaehu and the Whanganui headwaters are diverted into the Waikato catchment. Physically culturally and spiritually our connections will always be strong. We mourn the loss of Lady Raiha Mahuta a kuia rangatira who devoted so much of her life to nurturing the life force of her children her mokopuna and all those who come after her. 
Her name will be for ever linked with the legacy of protection and preservation of the Waikato River and I stand today first as an uri of Whanganui and Whangaehu to honour Lady Raiha for the generosity of spirit that she expressed towards us. We have much to treasure in her contribution. We have much to grieve. We are in awe of the sheer tenacity of her role the respect she engendered from the Crown and the strength of her commitment to principles as co-negotiator on the Waikato River settlement for Waikato-Tainui. She did so much to protect and preserve the tribal and cultural heritage of Tainui and for that this nation is indebted to her. 
In the example that she modelled for Tainui she also blazed a pathway for other iwi including my own. It was through the grace of the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu the late Sir Robert Mahuta and Lady Raiha that our claim before the tribunal was heard first of all the big river claims. Lady Raiha and Tukoroirangi Morgan were also instrumental in providing support for the Whanganui River settlement including sending people down to provide advice to our technicians. They supported us in many ways and in turn we shared appreciation of their generosity in helping them to establish tira hoe waka along their river. 
So close is the relationship between Whanganui and Waikato that Dame Te Ata bestowed upon our old people the honour of naming her mokopuna Ngawai Hono i te Po the daughter of Kingi Tuheitia and also Amaia the daughter of Tipa the daughter of Lady Raiha and Sir Robert. These connections lifelong tribally bound and personally linked are the ones that we will treasure for ever. When we see them we will remember Raiha. 
But there are other associations that I want to mention. Raiha and I were part of the national employment network during the 1980s working on Maori access and Maori business development. We were both engaged in job creation in our respective rohe and it was through that capacity that I developed a huge admiration for her which continues to this day. Raiha was very involved in Tainui’s response to the high unemployment at that time including running a number of programmes within Waikato. The thing that I liked most about her was that she was a true visionary able to see a pathway forward and then to put in the energy and determination to make it happen. She was hard-working and extremely committed to her people and would stop at nothing to make the difference. 
Finally I want to extend our love and our support from the Maori Party to the w’anau hapu and iwi whom Lady Raiha leaves behind. She was extremely aware of the enormous sacrifice that her husband the late Sir Robert made in the commitment he made to the people of Tainui a commitment that essentially he gave his life for. Lady Raiha was determined that her w’anau would continue to function and indeed to succeed in every aspect of their world. She was literally the heartbeat of her family. Today our aroha goes out to her children particularly to our colleague Nanaia; her mokopuna; the people of Tainui; and also her Ngapuhi people in Kawakawa. 
Today the tears of Ruapehu and Tongariro join with those of Tainui Ngati Manu Ngati Rangi and te iwi Maori katoa. We mourn the loss of a rare and distinguished leader within the Kingitanga a devoted wife a proud mother and an adoring grandmother. Tena koutou katoa. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others in this House who have paid tribute to the late Lady Raiha Mahuta. I did not have the privilege of knowing her personally but I do know of her very strong reputation her considerable achievements and the widespread regard and affection within which she was held by her family. I know too of the deep sense of loss that they will be feeling at this sad time. My thoughts are with our parliamentary colleague Nanaia in particular. Our wish is that the family is able to come together to deal with this massive gap in their lives to pay tribute as appropriate and to respect a great New Zealand woman. 
It is always difficult at times like this to come to grips with the reality of what has happened but I hope that the regard in which Lady Mahuta was held by many around this country and by this House as is evident in this Chamber this afternoon is of some consolation to the family in the difficult days ahead. My thoughts are certainly with them. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer and Questions for Written Answer—Consistency of Responses 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last week I raised a point of order that was taken up on your behalf by the acting Speaker Mr Tisch in respect of the consistency of written answers with oral answers given in the House. My simple inquiry is whether you are in a position to report progress. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the honourable member that I am still investigating the background to the issue. I am taking the member’s point of order seriously and I expect to report back. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax System—Improvements 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What measures will the Government consider to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Tax Working Group advised the Government that New Zealand could raise revenue with a mix of taxes that better promotes economic growth but the system also needs to be fair and have integrity. This is apparently not the case at present. The changes made by the previous Government have led to highly uneven tax rates both between different types of activity and between taxpayers with similar economic incomes. The Government would like to correct that situation. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Minister give some examples of situations where the tax system is not working as intended? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The following structuring is fairly typical: self-employed people earning $100000 a year would nominally pay about $27000 in income tax. If instead they form a company perhaps notionally owned by another entity and pay themselves a salary of $48000 then their total tax bill falls by $3000. If they have dependent children this then makes them eligible to receive a Working for Families payment. In this example that figure could amount to $8500 per year. So in this example of self-employed people earning $100000 tax structuring would have lowered their tax liability by around $11000 which is a drop of 40 percent relative to the taxes that are supposed to apply to that level of income and that would apply to someone who earns a wage or salary of that amount. 
Craig Foss 
: How is the position affected if the taxpayer owns an investment property? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the taxpayer in question owns a property investment financed by borrowing that produces taxable losses of $20000 this further lowers his or her personal taxable income to just $28000. At that point tax paid on an income of $100000 has fallen to below $10000. In other words the person’s effective tax rate is actually less than 10 percent or about one-third of the statutory tax rate. That is without counting any tax-free gains that the person may have made on the housing investment. 
Craig Foss 
: How can the Government improve this situation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In that situation the taxpayer would simply be behaving in a way that was implied by the tax structure that the previous Government put in place. But that system lacks fairness and integrity because of the way income is defined and because different tax rates have proliferated. These examples are not uncommon. The Tax Working Group found that there are 10000 households reporting investment losses while also claiming Working for Families credits. The Government is keen to make the taxation system fairer by closing this type of loophole so people pay the actual amount of tax that is the statutory tax rate. 
David Garrett 
: Does he believe that New Zealanders’ view of the fairness and integrity of the taxation system depends on Government spending tax money fairly and with integrity; if so will he call in the Auditor-General to investigate the misappropriation by Mr Paul Morgan and his mates at Tekau Plus of money meant for Maori business but which instead ended up in Mr Paul Morgan’s pocket? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course taxpayers’ perception of whether paying their taxes is worthwhile is very much dependent on how well that money is spent. That is why the Government has been going through a large-scale value-for-money exercise right across the State sector to ensure that the around $60 billion of taxes that we collect is spent wisely. In respect of the allegations the member has made it is my understanding those are being looked into. 
New Zealand—Clean Green Image 
2. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House that “I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the ‘clean green’ image”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: What advice has the Minister received as to whether the income from tourism will go up or down as a result of mining in schedule 4 protected lands? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not received any specific advice but I can probably speak my own advice which is that when New Zealand’s land mass is just under 27 million hectares and maybe at the most 7000 might be taken out of schedule 4 that is unlikely to turn back the Boeing 747s heading to New Zealand. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister of Tourism telling this House and the New Zealand public that he has not bothered to seek any advice at all on the impact of mining in high-value conservation land on the tourism industry which is worth more than $20 billion a year to this economy? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes; and the second point I would make is that if this would have such a disastrous impact on the tourism industry in New Zealand then I ask someone to explain why we had a record number of tourists arriving last year when there were already 82 mines operating on the conservation estate. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Is the Minister aware that the proposed mine site on Great Barrier Island is adjacent to the airport and that it will be the first impression that tourists to the island will get and the last impression they see as they leave; if so how does he believe that that will add value to the tourism industry? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not precisely sure what speed a Boeing 747 goes over Great Barrier Island at but tourists will have to have tremendous eyesight if they are going to see a mine that will be underground. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What position does he believe guided tours of mines in the conservation estate will take up in the Automobile Association’s list of 101 places in New Zealand to visit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure but I recently opened the visitors centre at the Waihi goldmine in the Coromandel. I was interested to note the large building that had been moved and officially opened by the then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark who celebrated that particular site and the tourists it had brought to the Coromandel. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister unaware that underground mining is already allowed in respect of schedule 4 lands and therefore the removal of Great Barrier Island cannot be about underground mining? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes but access to that mine is needed as was proved with Pike River. 
Metiria Turei 
: Further to the Minister’s answer to my previous question does he agree with Tim Cossar chief executive of the Tourism Industry Association that taking a long-term view it may be that tourism is a more valuable and sustainable industry to New Zealand’s economy than mining? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes in this regard: tourists will come to New Zealand for ever; we can mine only a certain amount of minerals. 
Metiria Turei 
: Would it not be better to act smarter and think ahead of Australia rather than blindly chasing dirty destructive economic ideas like mining our most treasured conservation places? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If it is all so bad is the member proposing that we close the 82 mines currently on conservation land; is the member proposing that Labour got it wrong when it approved 74 mines; and is the member herself admitting that she got it wrong when she said “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species”? It was all a bit different when the member was arguing the case. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When he said “What I stand by is environmentally sensitive mining” did he actually mean mining in environmentally sensitive areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that of the much-quoted 84 areas of mining in conservation areas none of them are actually protected schedule 4 areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I can confirm that. Funnily enough the other thing I can confirm is that back in 2005 a gold and gemstone operation was permitted in the Paparoa National Park by the then Labour Government and the access agreement was granted by the then Minister of Conservation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Are the 2500 hectares of the most beautiful and most sensitive conservation land in the Coromandel area simply the first of the currently protected conservation land in that area that he intends to open up to mining and will there be further areas; if so how many? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is impossible to answer that question at this time. One of the reasons why we are doing an aerial magnetic survey is to get a better understanding of— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that was published yesterday by Gerry Brownlee that says the Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Leader of the Opposition should not interrupt a Minister answering a question to seek leave to table a document. I will consider his point of order shortly but I think the Prime Minister is in the middle of answering a question. Has the honourable Prime Minister finished answering the question? He has. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that was published yesterday by Gerry Brownlee that says that contrary to what the Prime Minister said further schedule 4 areas in the Coromandel will be opened up. So how could he say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last bit was totally out of order. However on the indicator of fairness I must also alert the Prime Minister that in his answer to the question before last he went on for far longer than the question did. So I will consider it 50:50 or one all. I will put leave. Leave is sought to table that document. There is objection. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of any mines currently situated in environmentally sensitive areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I am aware that the previous Government approved an access agreement for the Pike River mine which is adjacent to and under the Paparoa National Park. The mine was described by the then Government as being in an area of “high conservation values”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will mining on the Coromandel and on Great Barrier Island be the “surgical incision” that he earlier promised or will it be more like the Martha Hill mine a huge open pit with 40 million tonnes of tailings? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can rule out any open-cast mining in those areas. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Government override the protection that the Auckland City Council has given Great Barrier Island as an area where under its district plan mining is a prohibited activity? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but anyone can make an application to change the plan. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why was the plan to open up formerly protected schedule 4 land to mining announced by Mr Brownlee only in August last year and not before the 2008 election when discussions had taken place with mining lobby groups before the election? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly there are always ongoing discussions with all sorts of sectors and areas over a long period of time but I would— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Brown envelopes. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I find that a bit offensive actually to be perfectly honest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call John Boscawen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Prime Minister had completed his answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister had answered as far as he saw fit given the question and given the interjections. John Boscawen supplementary question. 
John Boscawen 
: Mr—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Senior members know that they cannot make that kind of allegation and they should cease. 
John Boscawen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the proposals outlined in the document  
Maximising our Mineral Potential 
 are primarily about finding out for New Zealanders what potential wealth exists; and does he agree that aside from eco-fundamentalists and Phil Goff no rational person should be opposed to the establishment of those simple matters of fact? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I can also confirm that the last Government aerial magnetic survey was undertaken in the 1980s and I can also confirm that the reason for the delay in releasing the report for the last few months is that we have been trying to find quotes of Phil Goff standing up in Cabinet and rejecting the 74 applications for mines that his Labour Government approved. We could not find a single one. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the Prime Minister intending to further subsidise the exploration costs of overseas mining companies by $4 million when they already have a special concessionary tax regime which means that they pay practically no tax—if any tax at all—during their exploration and development phases and when their royalties can be as little as 1 percent of the total value of their production? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The reason for doing that is to try to get a stocktake of New Zealand’s wealth— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer cannot be “No.” when the question asked why he was spending that amount of subsidy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Prime Minister— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Poor old chap! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not particularly helpful I must say to the honourable Leader of House when a point of order is being considered. Given the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked I ask the Prime Minister to start his answer again and to reflect on the question asked. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly it is the same regime for oil and gas exploration that operated under the previous Labour Government. Secondly it is a successful regime in that it led to the Kupe oil and gas field which I launched officially last week. It is why we found out exactly what was there and we will find out what is there in the future. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Minerals Stocktake 
4. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What were the findings of the Government stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The stocktake confirmed that New Zealand is a mineral-rich country. Our mineral resources even excluding coal and other hydrocarbon-based minerals are estimated to be in the zone of some $194 billion. The stocktake leads to the conclusion that the environmentally responsible development of even a small amount of these resources could have a positive impact on the New Zealand economy. The stocktake also found that the mineral potential of schedule 4 lands could be developed with only a very small proportion of that land being directly impacted. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is the Government proposing as a result of the stocktake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is proposing removing 7058 hectares of land from schedule 4 including some areas of the Coromandel Peninsula and a sector of the Paparoa National Park. The land that is being removed represents just 0.2 percent of the total of schedule 4 land. However the mineral wealth of that land is assessed as being very high. We are also proposing to add 12000 hectares to schedule 4 for a net gain to the schedule of some 5342 hectares. These proposals strike a rational and sensible balance between taking advantage of our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will the environment be protected as a result of these proposals? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Removing land from schedule 4 does not mean that mining automatically takes place. All it means is that mining applications are considered on a case by case basis as they are for all other areas of the country. For schedule 4 land the environmental test that would be applied would obviously be much tougher. All mines are subject of course to the Resource Management Act and to a consenting process. It is worth noting that the Government is also establishing a conservation fund which would be drawn from royalties from mining on those lands. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister expect to have the “rational discussion” he said on Radio New Zealand National today that he wants to have about mining in conservation areas when in that same interview he first dismissed fears about mining in national parks yet later in the same interview described steps being taken to advance mining in Paparoa National Park and Rakiura National Park? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am very pleased that the member is listening to my messages around this particular issue which I am happy to give. It is extremely simple: the question is in two parts. We have said we will look at getting more information about the specific location of those minerals. The proposal before New Zealanders today has 3500 hectares out of a nearly 4 million hectare estate going out of the Paparoa National Park. The rest of it is not national park. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Great Barrier Island 
5. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Me pehea te whakatau a te Kawanatanga i nga korero a te mema paremata a Nikki Kaye mo te maina i nga moutere o Great Barrier me te mea nei kaore i pai ki te taringa ara tana i ki ra “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”; a he aha te wahi kei a Ngati Rehua ki te whakatutuki whakataunga? 
[ 
How will the Government resolve the comments by Nikki Kaye MP about the plans to open up Great Barrier Island to mining reported as this does not stack up “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”; and what role will Ngati Rehua play in achieving any resolution? 
] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I have already talked to the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Pita Sharples the co-leaders of the Maori Party and assured them that I will personally be consulting Ngati Rehua in the course of the next few weeks as the discussion document is out for public consultation. They will of course have a great deal of influence on the Government’s final decision on the 705 hectares proposed for removal from schedule 4 on Great Barrier Island. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He mana ano to nga iwi whanui ki te whakatau i nga mahi keri i roto i o ratou ake takiwa a he aha hoki tana kia noho orite nga wawata ki te tiaki i te taiao me nga wawata ohanga? 
[ 
The public at large have a role in determining mining operations in their own regions; what assurance can he give in terms of keeping the balance desired between the preservation of the environment and the economy? 
] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the experience in New Zealand to date has been that where iwi are consulted on these matters they are very very attuned to where the balance point lies between the economic advantage the cultural value and the environmental value. I have given the undertaking to the Maori Party co-leaders that I will personally meet with Ngati Rehua to sort out their position. The Hon Chris Finlayson has agreed to accompany me on a formal visit to that part of New Zealand. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has the Minister received any representations from the member for Auckland Central regarding the proposed mining in the Coromandel? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have had extensive discussions with the member for Auckland Central and the result of those is clear for everyone to see. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can the Minister confirm that the removal of national parks or any other conservation land from schedule 4 will not require a legislative change and therefore any grandstanding by National MPs will go untested in this House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The only grandstanding that is going on in this House is coming from the other side of the House. I well remember the Labour Party at the start of last year going back to its roots in Blackball on the West Coast—a mining town—and celebrating the fact that its party was born out of the mining industry. So those members should not tell us that there is any grandstanding going on on this side of the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: E ai ki te mea o Murihiku a Frana Cardno ko Rakiura tetahi o nga tino wahi whakaharahara whakamutunga o te ao; no reira he tika ta te Minita kowhiri ki te keri i te moutere o Rakiura; a ka pehea ra te huna i nga mahi keri e korerohia nei kia kore e takakinotia te wariu o Rakiura National Park hei wahi tapoi hei wahi tiaki taiao hoki? 
[ 
According to the mayor of Southland District Frana Cardno Stewart Island is one of the last paradises left in the world; so has the Minister got it right in choosing to carry out mining operations in Stewart Island and how will the mining be disguised so that it does not detract from the value of Rakiura National Park being a place for tourism where the environment is protected? 
] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: First there is no proposal to mine in Rakiura National Park. There is a clear commitment to do some aerial magnetic surveying to see exactly what might be there. The information that we have is that there are significant deposits of rare-earth elements in that part of the country. The geology tells us that. It may or may not be true so an aerial magnetic survey will tell us that. It will take a long time. As the Prime Minister said the last time that was done was in the early 1980s. Clearly there would be a lot of discussion before there was any activity like mining activity on Rakiura. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Ministerial Decision-making 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Why does she think it proper to cede control of mining in conservation areas by allowing the Minister of Energy and Resources to be a co-decision-maker in these decisions? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The member is making an assertion that is quite wrong. I am not ceding control. Without the Minister of Conservation’s signature access to the conservation estate cannot occur now and will not occur in the future. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister not understand that her power as Minister of Conservation to stop mining in conservation areas under her stewardship is being severely eroded and that conservation areas being opened up to mining in the Coromandel include the habitat of the endangered North Island brown kiwi; and is she proud of these two achievements? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand very well what my responsibilities are. This Government and I are committed to protecting public conservation land but as we have said all along we intend to balance economic opportunities with environmental responsibilities. As that member knows every application will be considered on a case by case basis bearing in mind the need for that balance and bearing in mind the need to protect our iconic conservation estate. 
Louise Upston 
: Is she aware of any other examples of joint decision-making in the conservation portfolio? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes there are several other decision-making contexts involving more than one Minister. For example decisions on whether areas should be listed on schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act are made jointly between the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation. Decisions to establish marine reserves are made with the concurrence of the Minister of Fisheries. Section 71 of the Wildlife Act required the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources to determine whether to allow Solid Energy to remove snails from the Stockton plateau. This was required in February 2006 under the then Labour Government to approve a permit for the translocation of a small number of snails and in April 2006 under that Labour Government to vary the permit. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister bother attending the press conference she held with the Hon Gerry Brownlee yesterday given that she said very little at it leaving the media with the impression that Mr Brownlee is running her portfolio? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I attended that press conference because I take my responsibilities as the Minister of Conservation very seriously as does this Government. The conference was not staged and I did not have any control over what questions were asked by the media. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does not this week’s announcement illustrate the likely outcome of her review of the advocacy role of the Department of Conservation and why does she not just agree now to her department being merged into Mr Brownlee’s ministry? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do not agree with the member’s assertion at all. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that about one-third of New Zealanders live in Auckland with no mainland national parks does she not understand that it is all the more important that she as the Minister of Conservation does her duty to protect conservation areas in Coromandel and Great Barrier Island? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We have said on numerous occasions that each application will be considered on a case by case basis. When I have that case in front of me I shall look at it carefully; I shall take my responsibilities as Minister of Conservation very seriously. We are committed to protecting public conservation land but we also appreciate that there is a balance that can be achieved. 
Public Transport Auckland—Trains for Electric Rail System 
7. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on the procurement of electric trains for Auckland’s commuter rail network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm that KiwiRail has begun the tender process to procure approximately 114 electric trains for Auckland. This is a $500 million investment signed off by Cabinet in November to upgrade Auckland’s commuter rail system. It will provide a modern world-class rail system that commuters will want to use. KiwiRail has issued an industry-engagement document and a preferred supplier will be identified by the end of the year. The first electric trains will be delivered in 2013. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does this fit into the overall upgrade of Auckland’s commuter rail network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Very well. The purchase of a new fleet of electric rolling stock is the final piece in the overall $1.6 billion project to greatly improve the capacity and reliability of Auckland’s rail network. The $600 million upgrade is progressing well. In addition the $500 million electrification of the rail network infrastructure is also progressing well. The necessary new signalling is already being installed on parts of the network and the first masts should begin appearing later this year. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that all or a substantial number of these units are built or assembled here in New Zealand either at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin or at Woburn in the Hutt Valley? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This will be a competitive tender process and of course KiwiRail will have the opportunity to bid for that process. The most important thing however is getting the right value for money for taxpayers in developing the trains and ensuring that we can obtain the trains within the $500 million budget that has been set. 
Health Personnel—Engagement 
8. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement “This failure to engage the very people with the right expertise—doctors and nurses who know the patients’ needs best—is seriously eroding our ability to provide patients with the care they need.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes—certainly as a criticism of the previous Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why when the Minister repeatedly says that he is putting clinicians at the centre of his health planning is Dr Geoff Buckett a Christchurch psychiatrist and general practitioner packing his bags for Australia citing lack of consultation with clinicians as a major problem? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am unaware of the specific situation to which the member refers. But if she is referring to a situation that is happening at the Canterbury District Health Board I think in the eating disorder service I can tell the member that yes the clinical head of the service is leaving but changes are being made to the service to improve services and these are all being led by clinicians. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why has he agreed to the closure of the palliative care ward at Gisborne Hospital against the wishes of the doctors and nurses in Tai Rawhiti who are the specialists in this area? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Gisborne Hospital in relation to which I must say we inherited some very significant problems when we became the Government has decided that it can provide an equally effective service by bringing together two wards in that area. Gisborne Hospital is doing a good job of providing more service to the people of the Tai Rawhiti district. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has the Minister seen about improvements in the public health service’s ability to provide patients with the care they need? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We have inherited some very big challenges from the previous Government. I have seen a press release from the Hutt Valley District Health Board announcing that it will finally resume breast reconstruction operations for the many women who were dumped off the referral list under the previous Government in 2006. Members will recall that up to 30000 New Zealanders were dumped off hospital waiting lists by the previous Government. I am advised that Hutt Valley District Health Board will provide 300 breast reconstruction surgeries over the next 3 years. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does his statement fit with the views of doctors on the West Coast who have said that they hold grave concerns for the future of Grey Base Hospital and who warn that their patients could die if services continue to decline? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As that member will know there have been very longstanding problems in the West Coast District Health Board. That member will know that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the previous Government to fly over anaesthetists from South Africa to provide services at that hospital. I can tell the member that the West Coast District Health Board is currently consulting on ways that we can secure the services for the people of the West Coast. I am not prepared to tolerate a situation where those people have a service that they cannot have any certainty about. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Statement 
9. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I have made it clear that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes. In relation to the Coromandel the Government is proposing to release 2574 hectares from schedule 4 which is 3.7 percent of public conservation land on the peninsula because in those nominated areas it assessed that the mineral value could outweigh the conservation value. The actual area of land affected would be considerably less than 2500 hectares. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does he agree that the Parakiwai and Otahu reserves on the Coromandel which include critically endangered species have high conservation values? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can tell the House that regardless of what I think those seven locations on the Coromandel are in the document because it was agreed by the two departments that came up with the document that they were suitable for inclusion. On that basis they are out for public consultation. These matters clearly will come to the fore. 
Hon David Parker 
: How did the Minister of Energy and Resources manage to convince the Minister of Conservation that the conservation areas in the Coromandel to be removed from schedule 4 are not high-value conservation lands? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I suspect that when the Minister of Conservation read some of the reports on the areas which included statements about the noxious weed population polluting some of those areas the conclusion might have been reached to accept the advice that these areas were suitable for removal from schedule 4. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that advocate balancing economic concerns with conservation concerns? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. The member may be interested to know that the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei advocates that as a policy. As was suggested by the Prime Minister before I suggest that the comment made by Miss Turei is a perfect example of where we should be going. She said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy”. That comment indicates acceptance in this House that the two competing goals of environmental sensitivity and economic development can be complementary. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How is mining kiwi habitat on the Coromandel in the national interest? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think that the member needs to read the whole document and make a submission on it. Quite clearly—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh she is not going to make a submission. That is probably what will happen. There will be just a whole lot of political tub-thumping and then nothing of any great substance. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked a pretty simple question about how a particular proposal was in the national interest. In response she was told to read some document and then was accused of political bluster while we were being subjected to quite an example of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is starting to part a little from his point of order. He may recollect that the Minister responded to some interjections from the member’s own party which Ministers are perfectly entitled to do. If the member goes back to the supplementary question asked he will see that a question like that will get any range of answers. The answer to a question asking how the Minister can do something could be: “Easily.” The Minister was probably being a bit more helpful. I think we have heard a reasonable answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are 300000 hectares on the Coromandel Peninsula. Some 2500 hectares 3.7 percent of the protected land is proposed for removal from schedule 4. I am sure that kiwi populations live throughout those 300000 hectares and not exclusively in small parts of the 2500 hectares that are proposed for removal. If the member knows better she should send in a submission for consideration. 
Tertiary Education—Funding Linked to Student Pass Rates 
10. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What responses has he received to his proposal to link a proportion of university funding to students’ pass rates? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Firstly the policy is not just about universities but about all tertiary institutions. Secondly there has been a generally positive reaction from the public students and tertiary providers to the Government’s proposal to improve the value for money of its investment in tertiary education by focusing institutions on students’ results and not just on enrolments. We will continue to work with the sector as we continue to finalise this policy. Naturally it is important that the approach be balanced. In the final design we want to avoid any perverse incentives that could arise. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that such a policy risks pressuring institutions to lower their standards in order to guarantee funding or encouraging institutions to avoid enrolling Maori Pasifika or second-chance students thus narrowing the base of tertiary enrolments and depriving New Zealanders of access to tertiary education? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. Firstly nobody said that we would be expecting 100 percent pass rates for all levels of education. There are a couple of reasons why that would not be the case including the fact that institutions would be expected to operate in the norms that their sector and sub-sector operates in and the levels of education they are providing. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why is the Minister making changes to the way that tertiary institutions are funded? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We need to know that the money that we are spending on tertiary education is being well used and is giving young people the skills that employers demand and that will lead to productive and meaningful employment. Students also invest their time and money in tertiary education and want to know that they will be supported to complete their qualification. Educational performance will be measured using indicators like qualification completion course completion and student progression to further study. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is he aware that a student who enrols in one discipline for a year and fails all or most papers re-enrols in another discipline for a brief time and then changes to a third discipline which he or she finally pursues to completion is registered in a university as having done at least two if not three incomplete courses; if so how will such a student’s eventual successful experience be allowed or permitted under his newly announced policy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I actually have personal experience of that situation which is good because the personal experience that I think the member is alluding to is a little bit different from what she suggests. In my case for example I passed all my papers in my first 3 years at university rather than what she is suggesting both in the House and on her blog site. Certainly my latter years—year 4 year 5 and my attempt at year 6—were less exciting and frankly I should have been shuffled out of university by then anyway. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister recognise that students such as the one described—whose experience is as he says very like his own—can go on to be fully contributing members of society? How will such students be given opportunities if under this new policy they are to be discouraged from re-enrolling which will clearly be one of the outcomes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said I think it is quite reasonable—and certainly I would endorse it from my experience—for taxpayers to expect some form of academic progress during somebody’s time at university if that person is to borrow with student loans. I am quite comfortable measuring my academic record in that respect. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Institutions wouldn’t re-enrol you again Mr Joyce. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well yes I think that they would but I say to Ms Street I do not think we should personalise it about just me. I am happy to table my academic record if that would help the member with her assertions as she is simply incorrect. I seek leave to table my academic record in order to help Ms Street. I point out that my C+ in vertebrate zoology in the second year was disappointing as was the invertebrate zoology mark of only C. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is actually a point of order. 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. 
Environmental Protection Authority—Resource Consent Applications 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has the Environmental Protection Authority received any resource consent applications under the new national consenting process provided for in the 2009 amendments to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. The first application has been received from Contact Energy for its Touhara 2 240-megawatt geothermal power plant. The proposal is nationally significant and would provide power for 180000 homes or the equivalent of a city the size of Wellington. The application has been referred to a board of inquiry to be chaired by Environment Court judge Gordon Whiting and to include four other commissioners with relevant skills in geology geothermal power the environment and tikanga Maori. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What are the key differences in the process for considering that project as compared with the process prior to the Government’s amendments? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first difference is that the application was made directly to the new Environmental Protection Authority rather than it going to a regional or territorial authority and being called in. Secondly the application must be dealt with in a timely way so that decisions are made within 9 months of the public notification. The third key change is that with the board of inquiry process the appeal rights are quite limited. The Government’s objective is to do these major projects once and to do them properly rather than seeing the years of litigation that have been so typical of major projects of this sort. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps is the Government taking to encourage the development of renewable energy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an objective of this Government to reverse the trend of the last decade in seeing a reduction in the proportion of renewable electricity. The changes we made to the Resource Management Act last year are part of that strategy and this year we will also be advancing a national policy statement on renewable electricity to facilitate sensible viable developments. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Investigation into Leaks 
12. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he stand by his statement that he ordered the inquiries into the leaking of information about the stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and changes to the structure of the public sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. These inquiries were instigated by the State Services Commissioner following a direction from me pursuant to section 8 of the State Sector Act. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer is the Minister suggesting that the Prime Minister misled the public when he said on Thursday that the State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie and not the Government had instigated the investigations into this area? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the Minister discuss the issue of an inquiry into those leaks with the Prime Minister at a Cabinet or Cabinet committee meeting last week? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There have been a number of discussions within Cabinet on those matters. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think the member addressed the question that I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just reflecting on the question asked. The question asked whether the Minister discussed the matter with the Prime Minister. The Minister did not answer that; the Minister answered a different question. So I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member may one day find out discussions in Cabinet are confidential. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why has the Minister not widened the scope of the inquiries to investigate the leaking of Budget-sensitive information to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am advised that the story used information based on the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s estimates. No decisions have been taken on the final shape of any tax cut packages to be announced in Budget 2010. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office that states that the Minister of State Services Tony Ryall confirms that he asked the State Services Commission to inquire into the leaks. 
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. 
Motions 
Hon Steven Joyce—Conferral of Degree 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without notice a motion of congratulations for persistence to Steven Joyce for having his degree conferred 21 years after he started it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I move  
That the House congratulate Hon Steven Joyce for having his degree conferred 21 years after he started it 
. I think this is a very good example of the House taking the chance to debate something that is very very important Government policy. The fact that we will now have an open debate on this matter one that will go down to the closure in Government time is absolutely brilliant. I thank the Leader of the House for his acceptance of this invitation to have a debate on this matter. I am very serious; I think that people who have their degrees conferred 21 years after they start is a sign of persistence. 
Mr Joyce was slow about getting it conferred. I think he had hoped over a period of time to do a little bit better—[ 
Interruption 
] He completed it in 3 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect some of us are very interested in Mr Mallard’s comments and we are struggling to hear with the hubbub down the back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it is quite a robust debate and members can expect a degree of noise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I worked in rural education and with adults and I know the importance of having an ability to have a long period during which people can complete their education. I think that Steven Joyce as the Minister for Tertiary Education is absolutely wonderful in welcoming a debate on this particular topic at this particular point in time. He is sitting in Anne Tolley’s seat already and he is showing that maybe there is a problem with the seat. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a certain sense of difficulty with the Minister of Education at the moment and I will not become involved in that one. Mr Joyce is sitting in her seat and I wonder whether there is some sort of infection in the seat that causes general incompetence. I wonder what that problem could be. 
We are seeing a Government in disarray with a very grumpy Leader of the House. He is drumming his fingers already. Government whips were caught totally—well shoddy I think is the word— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has to be a very narrow debate. It is to congratulate Mr Joyce on his academic achievements. I would have thought that the person who is speaking to the motion is straying well off the motion’s topic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a perfectly fair point of order. Certainly there are no grounds to comment on the Leader of the House in this debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Certainly not on academic achievement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not be commenting on my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was not commenting on Mr Brownlee’s academic achievements; I was saying to the Minister for Tertiary Education that I think it is good that he decided to have his degree conferred in the way that he did. Although he is considerably younger than I am he is part of the generation that did not think that having a degree conferred was quite as important at the time and did not bother doing it—and in some cases that was done quite deliberately rather than by accident. But later on he chose to have his degree conferred. 
I think he has highlighted that people learn in different ways. That is clear from his academic record. He seemed to learn fairly fast at the beginning of his tertiary education but he did not learn very much at the end. “Did Not Complete” or “DNC” is the expression that is used fairly frequently on his academic record. It means that a little bit as he is now he was focused on the front end—on the early optics—but in the end was not focused on the substance. 
All around the university system vice-chancellors are waiting for him to put back as far as policy is concerned some of the learning that he received when he was a student. There has been only one weak speech which was made at Te Papa and frankly when one listened to it one thing became very clear. It had a lot of his own work in it. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure where the delivery was. His one speech on tertiary education that I have read showed clearly that he had thought about the speech carefully. There were a lot of his own words in it. He may have learnt those words during his limited tertiary career or he may have learnt them afterwards. 
I thank him because I now have a copy of his academic transcript in front of me. A Bachelor of Science in zoology is a very good qualification for working in the National Cabinet—I think it is fair to say that there are a range of animals there—although clearly his experience was not as good as someone else who used to have responsibility in the tertiary education area and who had a good understanding of the way that cows’ guts worked. I am sure he applied his knowledge within the National Party. Well he would have if he was in that Cabinet; he would have been able to work it in there. 
But in this particular case when we look at the subject of labour economics we see that Mr Joyce could not even pass it. I want to know when he was ever Labour enough to study labour economics. On the subject of monetary economics we see that the pretender to the throne of the Minister of Finance could not complete the paper— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I said before this is a very very tight motion. It is to congratulate Mr Joyce on his academic career. It seems to me completely inappropriate that the speaker on his feet should dissect the academic record in such disparaging terms. This is a tight debate and speakers should be held to the tight bounds of the motion. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to hear any more on this. I think the member was certainly speaking to the academic record and I think he is entitled to do so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is notable that Mr Joyce has tabled only two of the four pages. I am not sure whether that complies with the Speaker’s requirements as to full tabling. 
It is really interesting that the only A I can find on page 3 or 4 is for the subject of energy and environment. I want to know what Gerry Brownlee thinks about that; although I must say that having a course on energy and environment within a Diploma in Social Sciences is somewhat unusual. Oh I see that it is from Massey University. Now I am beginning to understand. This member could not even succeed in Massey University postgraduate work. I do not want to say anything about the biggest polytechnic in the country which I have visited. Do not tell me your PhD is from Massey University Mr Speaker. I am pleased to learn that it is not. I knew you had a quality PhD and I am sure that Steve Maharey to whom I was speaking yesterday—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the phone is going already. Mr Maharey is tweeting me or trying to do something like that at the moment. 
Mr Joyce also has a B+ in the economics of trade legislation. The transcript states Trade Legis but I presume it means legislation. I think he should be doing Tim Groser’s job. As I was saying before one of the areas that was a “Did Not Complete” was in the area of monetary economics. I ask the member whether it is his intention to do something like what Dr Cullen did before he became Minister of Finance. 
Hon Member 
: What was that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He went to the United States and did a pretty intensive short economics course which brought him up to date with a modern understanding of economics. 
This transcript looks a bit like mine—pretty marginal. There are some reasonable grades mixed in with some shockers. Some things are complete and some are incomplete. If the member is the pretender to the role of Minister of Finance he will have to improve. He will have to do Economics 101 and he will have to get a level of understanding that is well beyond that indicated by this transcript. 
I do not know whether Geoffrey Palmer still lectures across the road whether his son does or whether someone else is taking the subject on the constitutional area of the way that Parliament runs. It is like it is in a lot of other places; when one is in Government one has to be very very careful about saying “Yes.” at the wrong time. That is what that member has done today. He said “Yes.” at the wrong time to the invitation to have this debate and it is something that he will regret going forward. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Today the House joins in unity—in fact I think the country joins in unity—to honour Steven Leonard Joyce latterly of the North Shore with a student ID number of 0816886. The academic records from Massey University which were laid on the table by the Minister himself—this will be a good speech Gerry; it is worth staying for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I withdraw. That was outside the Standing Orders. I return to the motion moved by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard to congratulate— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that the speaker on his feet referred to the pending absence of the Minister which I understand is not in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member apologised for having made that reference. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: One has to be quick around here. We will look for that on the transcript. The member of Parliament Steven Leonard Joyce began his study for the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science in 1981. That will mean by definition that he will not remember any other event in 1981 much like the Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key. He was busy studying for his Bachelor of Veterinary Science that year and everything else that was going on around him in the city of Palmerston North would have taken him by complete surprise. I will start in 1981 and then go right to the other end when the degree was finally conferred in 2002. The 20-year journey that the Minister for Tertiary Education took to get his degree conferred is a journey he ought to be proud of. I believe that the only way he was able to do it—and the reason we congratulate him today—is clearly that in that 20-year period he took adult and community education night courses in order to bridge the gap so he could get that 20-year degree. We congratulate him on the motion before the House today. 
There are many papers associated with that degree but only some of them make up the degree. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: All in 3 years Darren. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Sorry? 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: 3 years; that’s all it took. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I am looking at the transcript the Minister has tabled. It says here he started the course in 1981 and in 2002 the degree was conferred. I am being kind to the member; I said it was 20 years but it turns out that it took 21 years to get the degree. We are making no judgment about that. Today is about congratulating and honouring the Minister in charge of tertiary education in our country; we do not want to do anything else other than that. 
My colleague Mr Mallard made reference to the Minister’s extraordinary political skills. They have been built on the basis of his degree. In joining in the congratulations today we pay tribute to him for the extraordinary way in which he has managed his political career since then. As I look through the papers I see many of the things that I think have helped him. The one that really stands out to me is the A- mark he got in animal behaviour. I would have thought that even though that was an academic course every Monday morning it must feel like an applied course when he is in the Cabinet room watching the machinations of the Government. 
As he has already moved into Anne Tolley’s seat in the House has taken away half of her portfolios and no doubt will send the  
Hansard 
 record of today to her I believe it is worth reflecting on what has made up his extraordinary academic career. As everyone knows there are times in our careers when we go forwards and times when we go backwards. I suspect that after the SuperGold card incident and today’s particular events the Minister may be feeling the pendulum slightly correcting itself after 15 months of being told how wonderful he is. As my colleague the Hon Maryan Street pointed out sometimes academic careers have high points and sometimes they have low points. Certainly there are a few low points in the transcript. None of that should take away from the success of the member over the 21-year programme he undertook to secure an undergraduate degree. There is an old saying that God loves a trier and I think the Minister for Tertiary Education has shown us that if one sticks with it and applies himself or herself it is possible to achieve an undergraduate degree in science and zoology in New Zealand. 
There were things that were not completed—items of work that the Minister throughout his studies was not able to get around to completing. In offering our congratulations I say that the Opposition has no objection if the Minister decides to take up some of those courses again so he may continue to see his career trajectory take off in the way it has. Papers in monetary economics advanced economic theory and economy of development were not completed by the Minister. As Mr Mallard has already stated the next natural career move for the Minister of Transport Mr Joyce would be to move into the finance portfolio. Already we can see that the degree papers he was successful in have assisted him but it has not yet been possible for him to make that final leap across—just one seat over in that particular respect—so he can take on issues related to economics. 
There were many things in his degree course that were not completed but there were other things where he made a fair go at it—for example trade legislation. It would be great if we had two Ministers of Trade in a row—Mr Groser and Mr Joyce—who knew absolutely everything. Most countries are lucky to get one Minister of Trade who knows absolutely everything and we have Tim Groser for that! I ask members to imagine the beauty of living in a country that is mined to hell on one hand but with a Minister of Trade who knows everything on the other hand which would happen if Mr Joyce followed Mr Groser in that respect. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Aaron Gilmore. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Mallard says that Mr Gilmore could become the Minister of Trade after that. Can members imagine if Mr Gilmore tabled his academic transcript? He is so talented and distinguished; it would resemble the Auckland telephone book. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion is to congratulate the Minister on his academic achievement and the member who is speaking is straying outside of that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. Could the Hon Darren Hughes come back to the motion. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Sure thing. I am sorry; I was responding to interjections. It is not fair for the Minister to have to share the limelight with anyone else today. This is Steven Leonard Joyce’s day. It is his day to be in the sun and it was wrong for me to mention any other member of Parliament. I apologise to him for that; it was uncharitable of me on such a special day for him. I know that as we are speaking down here and doing the serious work of congratulating him right now the Hon Gerry Brownlee is baking one of his big old cakes upstairs for him with a few candles on it to say congratulations and well done. 
When we look at how the Minister used that academic degree we have to look at some of the other academic publications that came after that degree and have helped him with his political career which we are congratulating him on today. The academic textbook most strongly associated with Steven Leonard Joyce student ID number 0816886 would be  
The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception 
. That would be the textbook I think that would have assisted him— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say again that the debate is a very narrow debate. It is to congratulate the Minister. The book  
The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception 
 has nothing to do with academic achievement and the member should be brought back to the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it is a fair point of order. I invite the member to continue but be mindful that it is a narrow debate. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is a narrow debate. I was just going to say that I think it is very hard to argue that Steven Joyce has nothing to do with  
The Hollow Men: 
A study in the politics of deception 
; most of the book is about him. In politics some of those works can become academic textbooks even if at the time they are published that is not the intention. That is the only point I was making and I apologise to the acting Leader of the House Mr Carter for that transgression if that is what he believes it was. 
There is a lot in the academic transcript about theory and we know that the— 
Hon John Carter 
: I’m not the acting Leader of the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Carter used to have a great sense of humour. It is a funny thing when people are auditioning for Cabinet. 
I want to go to the year 1983. The Minister undertook the course “Introduction to Computing” and in 1983 it would have been the hippest most modern available course at that time. The Apple IIe would have been the computer of choice used. Now that he is the Minister for Communications and Information Technology I think his most current piece of work in that regard would be the roll-out of broadband which he now has ministerial responsibility for. It is no surprise to me that in the 1983 academic course most closely aligned with his role as Minister for Communications and Information Technology and broadband he only got a C. That might be a similar pass mark to the one that is given to him now but at least he saw it through until the end when he got a C mark. 
As Mr Mallard has already stated in his generous and gracious motion of congratulations to Mr Joyce today his career has been built on his academic transcript. The House is very grateful that it has been made available to us today to review just some aspects of it. It is an occasion to be warm-hearted towards the Minister but of course we will want to check where pages 1 and 4 of the transcript are because it may be that the House wants to return to it to take up a few more points that might be in there. 
It is not fair to comment on courses that were not undertaken; we have mentioned those that were taken but not completed we have mentioned those where he scraped through and we have mentioned those such as animal behaviour where he did very very well indeed. We could explore some of the courses he did not bother to do. That would show some of the areas where his interests did not lie at that time. But today is not a day for politics; today is a day for our Parliament to come together to look at somebody who we believe is a future Prime Minister of New Zealand—Steven Joyce. He runs rings round most of the other Ministers because he does the work. When they are sleeping he is plotting. That is what he is doing to make sure that he can make the achievements he makes and can serve our country in the way he does. 
It only remains for me on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to congratulate the Hon Steven Leonard Joyce. That 21-year degree programme has paid rich dividends for him and we look forward to seeing what happens if he ever does a postgraduate diploma. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Motion to congratulate Steven Joyce agreed to. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Joint Ministerial Approval for Access 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the introduction of joint ministerial approval for access to Crown land. Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence an event upon which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred. The purpose of the urgent debate procedure is to provide an opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. 
Ministers released a discussion paper yesterday containing a number of proposals and seeking input from the community before making decisions about the policy initiatives set out in the paper including the introduction of joint ministerial approval. No decision has yet been made. In these circumstances there can be no particular case of recent occurrence. This does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House; it simply does not meet the requirement of the urgent debate procedure at this time. The application is therefore declined. 
Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 March. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I said before the debate on this bill was interrupted that I would of course return to the House to use my remaining 2 minutes to speak to this bill. The bill essentially allows a widening of the use of video conferencing facilities in our court service—a critical issue of debate. I have to say I would rather have spent my 2 minutes and 30 seconds debating the important matter of mining but that is how these things go. 
I conclude my consideration of this bill by saying that it seems to me that building efficiencies into the court system—and I can only assume that this is part of the Government’s agenda with this bill—is part of the purpose of the use of this new technology. The one warning I offered in the initial part of my contribution was that in the United Kingdom a similar form of technology was used for a pilot programme called Virtual Courts. The idea from the perspective of UK lawmakers was to replace some of the early court proceedings with video conferencing which meant that prisoners would not have to be transported. The idea was that money would be saved as a consequence. That has not been the outcome of that system for those who introduced it and they are still working on finding cost savings through that pilot programme. So I issue a word of warning to the Government: if cost saving is the primary purpose of this initiative it may wish to cost more effectively—because it has not done so in the regulatory impact statement—the savings and the benefits of the system because it comes at another cost. 
We have to be very careful to ensure that we balance out the striving for efficiency gains in our court system which is under a lot of pressure with the idea that we do not undermine the very important principle of justice and giving all people their day in court so to speak. That has been very roughly cast out in this bill but it has been done through a set of criteria. It strikes me that there is still the ability even where evidence has been heard in a court case for a potential defendant not to be present. If that is the case I think we should be very aware of the fact that there is a balance to be struck and we will be looking for that balance in the select committee process. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker a huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa i te Whare. I do not mind admitting that I am a real fan of using video technology to make things easier to judge particularly when it comes to sporting endeavour such as watching the video replays whenever Manu Vatuvei scores for the Warriors or when Serena Williams wins line calls against just about everybody except her big sister. More than that I also enjoy watching people scramble for their earpieces whenever I or Te Ururoa decide to throw some ad lib Maori into our speeches in the House as I will now. 
E tautoko ana au i tenei tikanga kia hapai nga ropu me nga whanau e tiaki ana i te hunga haua e nga tangata turi ano hoki kia taea e ratou te uru ki roto i nga mahi katoa o tenei ao. Engari mo teneki pire e hoa he mea ano tenei no reira e tika ana kia tirohia atu ona painga ona he ano hoki. I te taha tautoko anei wetahi painga. 
[ 
I really endorse this business about encouraging groups and families who take care of the disadvantaged and the deaf so that they can become part of the workforce in all manner of work that this world offers. But as far as this bill is concerned I have to say that it is something else; so it is right that its advantages and disadvantages have to be taken into account very carefully. Here are some positive benefits 
.] 
Apparently travel costs may be reduced if people can video link rather than appear in person. People may feel safer if hoodlums are video linked from jail witnesses may feel safer if they can hook in by video and apparently cases can be dealt with in rural areas by video without judges having to travel. But if that is all that the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill has going for it then that is a pretty high price to pay for what I consider to be another step down the slippery slope towards the denial of fundamental human rights to citizens of this country—and that is what this bill is. Yes people can say that it is about capacity and efficiency but what it is really about is telling defendants that somebody else will make a decision about their right to have a day in court and be heard by their peers. 
I have never been a great fan of the English judicial system for obvious reasons but one thing I do like is its principle that a man must be brought before his accusers and that any man facing the possible loss of his liberty should have the right to face those who would take that liberty from him. I believe that a decent society should safeguard that right with all the vigour and devotion it would give to safeguarding the rights of its children its women its workers its dogs and—one day I pray—even its indigenous peoples. I say all that because court by video would take that away. Court by video is not the sign of a mature society or indeed of a sophisticated society. It is not the sign of a society that recognises the value of mankind and the rights of man—not at all. 
Court by video in my view is the coward’s way of dispensing justice. Indeed it sets justice to one side and denies people their right to a fair trail for the simple reason that it might save money. Certainly court by video may improve efficiency but the exercise of justice through the court system should not be based on models of industrial competence and good organisation. Justice should always be about the rights of all players both the defendants and the plaintiffs and it should not be weighted to suit one side or the other. 
Court by video will clearly be of no benefit to those who are facing charges under the Crimes Act. Indeed video will operate against those who face the courts in those circumstances. Court by video gives society the opportunity to stand aside from its decisions to be one step removed from the tough decisions it has to make and to be faceless in its sentencing. 
I would be willing to bet that the minute we start down this road will be the minute that court decisions particularly against those facing charges under the Crimes Act get harsher. It is easier for people to condemn those whom they do not have to look in the eye and it is easier to act out one’s prejudices when those one is sentencing can be switched off at a television screen as if they were nothing more than an annoying advertisement. I can think of countless cases that I have been involved in when a judge or jury rather than go through the angst and anxiety of actually hearing from a defendant would have been happier to deal with a video and make a decision based on that. 
We would be extending to our wider society the same kind of brutal uncaring unreality that exists in the video game world where we allow our kids by simply watching that stuff to abuse assault maim rape kill and even massacre in the name of video sport. In exactly the same way that it is also easier to kill by video than in person I have no doubt that it is easier to send a person to jail or keep them there by video link than in a courtroom because one will be divorced from the harsh reality of one’s decisions by that video link. 
As for that crappy story about prisoners being better off because they can give their evidence from jail I would say that my experience is that when one is in the same old jail cell with the same exercise times the same medical times the same mail times and the same food times every single day of the year a day out to go to court ain’t exactly the hardship that some people might have us believe. Yes the transport ain’t the best and the scenery ain’t great between “the Mount” and the District Court and the decor ain’t the flashest down in the cells but it beats being in jail believe you me. 
I have no doubt that there are people in this House who are keen on this bill. But I also know that the Attorney-General himself the Government’s very own marshal opposes it on the righteous grounds that it is bad legislation that it is in breach of human rights and that it is a step down the path towards a faceless judicial process by which Maori I believe will be ground up and spat out into jails without even the opportunity of confronting those who sent them away. 
I am advised that the Maori Party will be supporting this bill at its first reading to enable everybody to put their views before the select committee but that we will retain the right to make a separate decision at the bill’s second reading based on the information we hear at the select committee. I respect that position. I intend to ensure that the party’s votes reflect that position. In the same way that Nikki Kaye opposes her party’s position on mining on Great Barrier Island and Sir Roger Douglas opposed his party’s position on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment bill I will not be supporting this bill at its first reading second reading or third reading. Kia ora. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I note the comments made by the previous speaker my friend and colleague Hone Harawira. I respect his position but I am pleased that his party is supporting the bill at this stage so that it can be referred to a select committee. As I understand it members of the Opposition are also supporting the bill at its first reading. 
It is a fact that the justice system in this country for a number of reasons takes far too long to work through its stages. Anything that will improve the delivery of justice by our justice system is in my view to be applauded. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied and there are many examples of people waiting too long for progress to be made in hearings. 
All this bill does in fact is to drag our court system into the 21st century by allowing the use of audiovisual technology principally to progress procedural issues in the criminal courts. This technology is used in some aspects of proceedings particularly in terms of witness testimony. 
One aspect of improving our justice system is looking for ways to drive much more efficiency. In fact we are already doing that. One of the areas for instance in which we are doing that is in the use of the courts themselves. We are extending the hours of sitting. The previous administration if I am correct introduced the extension of night sittings of courts. That is to be applauded because we have assets in excess of $700 million sitting on the Ministry of Justice’s books and not being used. 
So it makes sense that we use more efficiently the assets and resources that we have available to deliver justice in a proper and effective way so that people can get on with their lives. With those few comments I am happy to support the first reading of this bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As has been said by previous speakers on behalf of the Labour Party we will be supporting the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I concur with some of the comments that have been made by the two previous speakers. I agree that there are some imperfections in our justice system. I agree with Mr Quinn that it takes far too long on average between arrest and trial in criminal matters. We need to improve processes in that respect. A lot needs to be done to reduce the complexity of trials to ensure that people get a fair trial and to ensure that the trial takes place not too long after the offence partly because people languish in prison if they have not been granted bail at the cost of the State during the period between arrest and trial. That is unfair to them on occasion and a waste of taxpayers’ resources. 
I also agree that civil litigation has become so complex and costly that most litigants now cannot afford to go to the courts to resolve their disputes. Given that one of the reasons we have courts is to provide a mechanism to enable people to resolve their disputes without resorting to non-civil means such as stand-over tactics or violent disagreements that situation means that something is wrong with our system. 
This bill makes some good changes. It states that audiovisual technology can be used on some occasions and it sets out some rules on that use. I will refer to some of those rules. When no evidence is being given in a criminal proceeding the presumption ought to be that the matter can proceed by way of audiovisual links. Those are things such as a bail application or a call-over. An example might be a charge originally presented in court on one day and adjourned to a date a month later and everyone has agreed that at that month-later date the matter will be referred to a subsequent date for a plea of guilty or for a trial. 
Now at that call-over there really is no point in going to the trouble and expense of having all of the parties present. Where there is no substantive evidence being given and no substantive question being tried by the court it is perfectly proper that video technology be used on some occasions and indeed that there should be a presumption in favour of its use. Of course that presumption can be overcome if there are good reasons not to use audiovisual technology in a particular instance. 
In respect of civil matters again the test does not need to be as high as it needs to be in respect of a criminal trial where the substantive charge is being heard. So there is a relatively lighter test in respect of the use of this new technology in civil matters than applies to matters where the substantive criminal charge is being heard such as a defended hearing or a jury trial where someone is charged with a crime. However in respect of the substantive criminal trial it is proper that there is no presumption in favour of use of this technology because there is a lot in what Hone Harawira said: that we ought to give people the opportunity to hear and be heard if they are on trial. 
The definition of to whom this new law applies is wide. It refers to “any participant in a proceeding” and a participant in a proceeding can include a defendant or a party to a trial. I would not like to see a system where we were forcing the defendant into a trial process where he or she or witnesses did not have a right to be there personally. That protection is afforded by this legislation by setting out criteria for when to allow and when not to allow the use of audiovisual links. Those criteria are set out firstly in clause 5; secondly in respect of criminal proceedings additional criteria are set out in clause 6. In criminal proceedings the overall consideration is the potential impact of the use of the technology on the right of the defendant to a fair trial. That consideration is at the heart of decisions on whether this technology can be used in criminal proceedings. 
On one issue I disagree with one of the speeches that was given by an earlier speaker on behalf of National and that was in the contribution that Simon Bridges made. Simon Bridges said that he agreed with the use of this technology but then went on to say that he could see it being extended into more regular use in respect of the substantive trial in a criminal matter. I agreed with him when he said that demeanour does not prove “truth”. Someone can present as a fidgety witness who looks nervous and a lot of people are understandably nervous when they are in court even as witnesses but that fidgetiness or nervousness does not necessarily indicate that the person is lying. Similarly someone might appear at a trial and have a very calm demeanour but that calm demeanour does not prove that he or she is telling the truth. 
I agree with both of those propositions that Simon Bridges stated. Where I disagree with him is in taking it a step further to suggest we can rely more on audiovisual language where one does not have the same access to body language and the nuances of people when they are giving evidence because although demeanour does not prove truth or untruth it is certainly relevant to the assessment of whether there is truth or untruth. Although demeanour will not always show to the judge or jury whether someone is lying or is to be believed on occasions it does. The defendant ought to have the ability to have recourse to those occasions and the judge or jury ought to see those occasions. There are many occasions where a witness is not fidgety or looking nervous in respect of the whole of his or her evidence but when it comes to the crucial part of the evidence that is being contested and where there may be an untruth being told or a gilding of the lily in one way or another the body language changes. 
In respect of that sort of situation it is very important that the witness is there to be seen by everyone: the jury the judge and the defendant. The defendant therefore gets the sense that his or her trial is fair. We need only to think of our own experience in Parliament where we have audiovisual presentations from people at select committees. Although again that is a great facility that saves cost to people on occasions I think one loses the passion and sincerity of a presentation that one sees when people appear in person in front of the select committee. 
Although the Labour Party supports this legislation we emphasise that we do so on the basis of the protections that are found in the legislation which have different presumptions in respect of different sorts of processes so that for a criminal substantive matter where evidence has been called there is no presumption in favour of the use of this technology. On many occasions in a substantive hearing the evidence will be inappropriate to be heard in that way. 
Having said that we cannot ban its use in all criminal substantive matters because there will be occasions when all parties including the defendant agree that it is appropriate that the matter be traversed by way of audiovisual evidence. An example might be where there is some professional evidence being given about some theory of a pathologist on how somebody died or an alternative cause of death being posited and the witness who has that specialist expertise is overseas. 
It could be in everyone’s interest—the Crown because the Crown wants to get to the truth of the matter and the defendant because the defendant wants to prove his or her innocence—that the evidence of that international expert in this possibly narrow field be available to the court. In practice that may be affordable to the defendant only through the use of audiovisual technology and it could be very appropriate that it be allowed. This legislation would allow that to happen by audiovisual link without creating a presumption that audiovisual evidence can be forced upon a defendant where the demeanour or the truth-telling of the witness is one of the matters at issue and where the defendant ought not to be forced to accept such evidence. 
So for those reasons the Labour Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee. We think it is an appropriate advance. It will not make much difference to the cost-effectiveness of trials but it will make a small difference and it is a step in the right direction. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 4 Purpose 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 requires the Crown to provide iwi with the equivalent of 20 percent of the aquaculture space created between 21 September 1992 and 31 December 2004—the pre-commencement space obligation. These amendments are designed to shore that up and the Labour Party will be supportive of them—certainly they are timefly. In addition to the provision of the 20 percent of all new space created between these dates the Crown has assured that it will endeavour to meet its pre-commencement space obligations by 31 December. 
The amendments to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 have provided the Crown with an additional option to comply with its aquaculture pre-commencement space obligations. One thing to say from the outset is that the interrelationship that has grown between the Crown and iwi and iwi and iwi has allowed us to reach a joint agreement on the amendments. That is something that has to be commended and recognised. The main purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Crown to deliver on its contemporary Treaty of Waitangi obligations which is a process that the previous Labour Government began and put a whole lot of effort into. The Minister needs to be commended now for getting it to this stage and taking it through to finality. 
There were problems with the existing settlement framework and the progress for discharging the Crown’s space obligations and responsibilities was something that the Labour Government and other iwi partners have worked on together. Again I commend the Minister for his efforts. The proposed change allows practical solutions that certainly are at the forefront for the Hauraki iwi and the Te Wai Pounamu iwi. The amendments will certainly give effect to the agreement between the Crown and the iwi of the South Island Hauraki for an early settlement of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations and certainly that is why the Labour Party is very supportive of this legislation. 
E whakaaro atu i roto i a tatou mo te mahi penei tonu. E mohio atu tatou i roto i a ngai Maori te kaha rawa i te mahi atu i nga mahi e rite atu ki te ahu whenua na te pai o te mahi penei tonu kei te mahi tatou haere atu ki te wa i te mahi atu mo te whakatikatika o nga hua o te takutai moana. I tautokotia te Ropu Reipa mo te mahi pera tonu e whai hoki tatou hei oti te mahi e timata atu i tera kawana o te Ropu Reipa mai o te tae i te wa nei. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
There is a view within us that we continue to work towards this end. We are mindful that within Maoridom there is a will to achieve much as they did in agriculture and repeat it here in terms of harnessing adjusting and harvesting the benefits from the sea. The Labour Party endorses these initiatives and will continue to work towards completing what the previous Labour Government set out to do from the outset to the present time. Thank you 
.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Te mea tuatahi ki oku nei korero ki te whanau pani. Raiha mihi kau atu au ki a koe mo to kaha mo to manaaki ki ahau ki toku whanau. No reira he mihi aroha ki a koe e whaea me to whanau hoki. Ano he mihi aroha ki a Nanaia me tana whanau. No reira he wa potopoto tenei tangi ki a koe. 
[ 
I wish to firstly acknowledge the bereaved family. Lady Raiha I thank you for your efforts in taking care of myself and also my family. Therefore I express my condolences to you and your family and to Nanaia and her family too. This then is just but a brief moment to lament you 
.] 
Very briefly the purpose of the bill is to add some tools to the tool box of the Crown for its complying with its obligation under section 22(1) of the main Act in respect of the pre-commencement space. I echo the words of my colleague Parekura Horomia who said that the level of cooperation and consultation between iwi and the Crown iwi and iwi and everybody involved was a sight to behold. 
The bill is about making good on a promise of using the settlement to better everybody rather than just one group. This pre-commencement settlement is in everybody’s best interests. I can say without contradiction that the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who heard submissions were astounded at how easy the process before the select committee was namely because we all agreed on it but also because we wanted to see— 
Kelvin Davis 
: We always agree. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: We always agree yes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes it goes without saying that we always agree. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding leadership. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you very much. It was also about trying to get a swift turn-round. As you Mr Chairperson Barker know better than a lot of people sometimes the cogs in this place can turn very very slowly. I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time on these provisions because I do not think we need to do so. 
I suppose the winners in the first instance are the Hauraki people and Te Wai Pounamu people. They now have the opportunity to make good on their wishes to have an economic base for their iwi members. It also gives the Government the opportunity to look maybe later on at dealing with Treaty settlements and at how fast we can move if there is a will to do that. 
I mentioned the cooperation of iwi and the Crown. I also want to say something about the cooperation of iwi. Sometimes cooperation between iwi is very difficult because of the boundaries because of old stories and because old wars and fights are being fought on another battleground. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Only up north! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That does not happen in the north. Thankfully on this occasion the cooperation between iwi and the consultation has been second to none. I just want to say that the purpose of the bill is about making a quick start on economic development for the iwi involved. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 A kati ra e tu tautoko ana i nga mihi ki tenei o o tatau whaea rangatira e takoto atu ra i te mahau o tana tipuna whare. Na koia ra kua huri ki tua o te arai kua piripono atu ra ki tana hoa rangatira kua mate noa atu i mua i a ia. Koira e Raiha haere atu ra e koe i runga i to huarahi wairua kia tae atu ra ki nga ringaringa mahana o to rangatira e tatari mai ra mou. No reira koinei te tu ki te tautoko i nga mihi aroha ki a koe. No reira haere atu ra haere atu ra haere atu ra. 
[ 
I stand to support the acknowledgments to our matriarch who rests on the verandah of her ancestral house. She has passed away to be with her husband who died long ago. So Lady Raiha go on your spiritual journey to the warm arms of your husband who awaits you. Therefore I rise to endorse the loving tributes accorded you. Farewell farewell farewell 
.] 
I join earlier speakers today in honouring the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta and I endorse the complimentary statements that have been made about her in this House this afternoon. Certainly she was a very very strong-willed and determined person when it came to the interests of her people and that has to be applauded by all particularly in this House this afternoon. 
We are in the Committee stage of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. Specifically this afternoon we are discussing aspects relating to the purpose of the bill itself. My colleagues the Hon Parekura Horomia and the Hon Tau Henare have covered many of the aspects involved in that particular clause. Later in the debate on the bill I am sure we will cover the necessary amendments to bring about the particular changes to the legislation but I will put those matters aside for now. 
What has not been raised up to this point in time is the history around the aquaculture settlement and in particular the Maori fisheries settlement reached some years back. It is important to make it clear to the Committee that the aquaculture interests of Maori were set aside to be settled separately from Maori fishery interests in general. Many former Ministers from both sides of the House considered these matters to be very difficult and to require considerable time for consultation before they could be properly settled or should I say properly defined in terms of how Maori were to not only enter the industry but also become a force to be reckoned with within it. 
I see that the Minister in the chair Nick Smith is not the Minister who brought the issue to the House on behalf of the Government. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the former Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley because I said at the time of the first reading debate that he had tackled this issue very quickly. I was very surprised that he was prepared to act so early on in his ministerial career on the challenges that this legislation places before any Minister. So I take the opportunity now to congratulate that Minister. 
In particular as the previous speaker Tau Henare raised this bill is about iwi-to-iwi relationships in a very competitive industry. When I say “competitive” I mean not only in aquacultural terms but also in terms of mana moana the water space that is required for Maori to enter the industry. Where there are rich areas of water space there certainly will not be too many difficulties for Maori in entering the industry. But that space is not always of the best quality. It is very much like land. In some parts of the country the land is pristine. I am not talking about the conservation estate; I am talking about farming land up and down this country. That situation is very much the same with regard to the aquaculture industry. There are areas of water space that are rich and would certainly promote Maori success in the aquaculture sector which is already happening. But there are also other areas where there is perhaps not the same sort of richness in the water space. 
I recall one former Minister putting a moratorium on aquaculture development simply because the race was on the battle was on to secure good water space. Although some concerns were expressed at that time it was understood that a moratorium needed to happen and it did happen. As I recall matters the Minister having placed a moratorium on the aquaculture industry gave us the opportunity to rationalise the use of the water space because there were many stakeholders involved in the use of the water space not only in the commercial sector but also in the customary sector. A lot of areas of water space that Maori consider to be their traditional or customary mahinga mataitai areas were also being exploited and plundered and were under pressure from various iwi and commercial groups that wanted to develop certain areas. 
There were also environmental issues. I recall sitting on the Primary Production Committee and hearing submissions on the moratorium. I think that was in 2002. Although there was strong opposition in some cases to the moratorium there were also strong concerns from the industry that the environment in which it worked—I am talking about water space—was showing problems in terms of tidal movements erosion water quality and also the quality of the marine produce. In this case I am talking about the mussel industry. 
So a lot has happened in the aquaculture sector and it has brought us to the point where now we not only have a strongly regulated industry—for want of better words—but we also have agreements in place that hopefully in the near future will prevent inter-tribal conflict of a commercial type and also encourage iwi to work collaboratively with each other to promote their own involvement in the aquaculture industry. That is all I have to contribute to this part of the debate. I am mindful that we are talking about clause 4 and I have probably wandered way beyond that but I thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly I join with the Prime Minister and members of the House who have made their tributes to the passing of Lady Raiha Mahuta. I want to acknowledge working with her in my role as the Minister for the Environment particularly on the issue of the Waikato River. I know she was a person who will be deeply missed but also one who has made a huge contribution not just to Waikato-Tainui but also to New Zealand. 
The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill puts into effect a settlement for an issue that has been quite divisive in my own community of Nelson: the whole issue of the foreshore and seabed. Aquaculture is very much a new industry. In my view if we reflect on the Parliament and the big debates that occurred in the early years of this Parliament about land law or more recently on debates on fishing we see that this is the latest of those resource issues which we need to work through in a considered way. I think most of us would regret the way in which the gold rush for marine space got away a bit in areas like the Marlborough Sounds and the Tasman Bay which gave rise to a huge sense of grievance from Maoridom that led to the very divisive issue of the foreshore and seabed. I hope that in considering this bill we can lay some of the foundation for the more contentious way this Parliament will have to find a way through the more difficult challenge of the foreshore and seabed. 
It is worth noting also that although we went through that sort of gold-rush era in the 1980s and 1990s around the development of aquaculture we then went to the opposite end with the moratorium. This bill comes about because of the failure of policies in the last decade to provide for aquaculture space. When the agreement was reached with Maoridom that 20 percent of aquaculture space would be made available it was intended that Maori would get that space from new areas that were being created. What actually happened was that the 2005 aquaculture legislation did not live up to its promise. It did not get the incentives right. So the essence of this bill is to provide an alternative mechanism effectively through the payment of cash by the Crown to iwi in areas that have a particularly high development of aquaculture. 
So although I support this bill and see it as a pragmatic response to and a way through a problem the more critical debate that this Parliament will have to deal with will be to reconfigure those aquaculture laws so that we can grow the wealth of that industry overall. I welcome the fact that this bill has very broad support in the House. It is important for those communities particularly in the top of the South Island—whom I am privileged to represent—and also in the Coromandel. But it is very much a stopgap measure to deal with the issue of the aquacultural space that was previously provided and to get some money into the hands of iwi so that they can invest and be part of the industry. However if this bill is really to deliver on the expectations of Maoridom it is beholden on this Parliament to sort out aquaculture laws so that aquaculture is an industry that can grow and grow without the sort of gold rush that we had in the 1990s. That will be a difficult balance for this Parliament to address but one that we must urgently do if we are to move from cleaning up the mess to looking forward on the future of aquaculture and particularly Maori involvement in that important industry. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tuatahi maku hei tautoko i nga mihi kua tukua i roto i te Whare nei ki to tatau whaea a Lady Raiha. Kua tae mai nga korero hei tona wa ka hikinga ka kawea atu ki tona ukaipo i roto o Ngati Manu. Na reira e te whaea Raiha e moe e moe e te rangatira. 
[ 
Firstly I support the acknowledgments expressed in the House to our matriarch Lady Raiha. News has arrived that she will be taken in time from where she is lying in state to her motherland in Ngati Manu. Therefore rest in peace the matriarch Raiha rest 
.] 
It is probably coincidental that today on the day that we talk about the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill I was given a pottle of Bluff oysters. The problem with giving just one pottle of Bluff oysters to a Maori when he is surrounded by colleagues such as Shane Jones Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia is that— 
Hekia Parata 
: You get a sniff. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: One gets a sniff but that is about all. But not wanting to be accused of not sharing with my colleagues I did whisper out to them. When they did not come running I decided that they were not interested. 
The Labour Party supports this bill. In essence it is a bill that helps to allocate 20 percent of the aquaculture area to iwi. I believe that this is a way forward for Maoridom. I have spoken before about the fact that Maoridom has always relied on aquaculture or kai moana as we say for sustenance and now it is only appropriate that we move from the traditional gathering of seafood into doing this as a business. This bill helps Maori to move ahead in terms of the aquaculture industry. 
I look forward to the day when Maori can help to expand this industry. I believe that we are looking to expand it to over a billion dollars for the economy by 2025 and I look forward to that. I have travelled extensively overseas and being a connoisseur of seafood I always try the local delicacies wherever I go. I have to say that New Zealand seafood is second to none. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Been to Japan? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I have to say I have not been to Japan so I cannot comment on the comparison there. I do recall going to Canada and having a meal of what I was told was scallops which were in fact stamped fish flaps. To me that is not seafood whatsoever. 
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the Crown to deliver on its contemporary Treaty of Waitangi obligations in relation to commercial aquaculture by recognising the problems with the existing settlement framework and the progress for discharging the Crown’s pre-commencement obligation. The proposed change allows a practical solution to the issues without renegotiating the underlying intent of the settlement. 
Going back to Maori and the aquaculture industry there are technical difficulties and bureaucratic red tape that hinder the expanse and development of the aquaculture industry. I would like to raise again the issue of a friend of mine who is an oyster farmer in the very far north. He has to post a bond of $9000 per hectare for his oyster farm. He has 13 hectares and that equates to something like $117000 that he has to post up front before he even starts making a dollar from his farm. That sort of red tape hinders his development and his desire to progress his oyster farm. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s the bond for? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: The bond is for the clean-up if he ever has to abandon the farm. I am not sure how the regional council came to the sum of $9000. He should count himself lucky in that it started at $22000 a hectare. He was totally unable to come up with that sum of money. In the far north there have been only two instances of people walking off their farms. One was the Waikare Inlet where the conditions were totally outside of the control of the farmers in that there was supposed effluent spilling over into the Waikare River. There was one other incident which I am not sure of. It is hard to justify the extent of that bond and there could be better ways I feel to make sure that we cover the need to have some sort of contingency fund if oyster farms are abandoned but that that fund is not a hindrance to their development. Kia ora. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise with great pleasure to speak to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. I do need to take issue however with my colleague Kelvin Davis in that his extension of an invitation to taste Bluff oysters to Maori colleagues only was seriously limiting and limited. I will talk to him about that issue later. Although this bill is about Maori commercial aquaculture claims settlements and we have not had this conversation yet I can assure the member that some Pakeha are also devotees of kai moana. So the next time that he has a pottle of Bluff oysters delivered to his office I will ask to be on the invitation list. They will go even less far than they went when the invitation was extended to the member’s Maori colleagues. 
The purpose of this bill is clearly to provide the Crown as the bill states with an additional option for complying with its aquaculture pre-commencement space obligations. As the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment said a few moments ago this of course was an issue of particular anxiety and difficulty in Te Tau Ihu. For the eight iwi who are associated with Te Tau Ihu the top of the South Island this bill has been a long time in coming and is something they have welcomed. I too have the privilege and the honour of living in the top of the South Island. It is an extraordinary place. It is imperative to make sure that the resources of that area are shared in a way that reflects the obligations that are incumbent upon both the Crown and iwi under the Treaty of Waitangi. This legislation goes some way towards correcting an imbalance of the past and towards addressing the contemporary needs. Therefore it has support from across the Chamber and that is as it should be. 
There is also of course the iwi of Hauraki who are engaged with this legislation. But Ngati Apa ki Te Ra To Ngati Koata Ngati Kuia Ngati Rarua Ngai Tahu of course in Te Waipounamu and Ngati Tama Ngati Toa Rangitane and Te Atiawa from the top of the South Island are all iwi with whom I engage on a regular basis. Their satisfaction at the resolution of this matter is of great satisfaction both to the Crown and to Maori. Although the wait has been a long one—and I recognise that—it is important that we move forward collectively as a Parliament and support this legislation because there is indeed enormous economic potential in the industry. Even just in the Te Tau Ihu area there is enormous potential in aquaculture and I look forward to it becoming a significant and thriving industry. 
There are some difficulties around the aquaculture industry at the moment as it is currently being experienced by the fishers and the industry representatives in the top of the South Island. I hope that we can move from where we are now with this industry on the basis of this legislation to something that is dynamic that is profitable that adds value that provides much-needed jobs in the top of the South Island and that provides employment that is properly remunerated. However much people love to live in the Nelson area they cannot live on “sunshine” wages. I look forward to the development of aquaculture benefiting not only New Zealand’s economic position but also very particularly the position of the people in the top of the South Island. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatau. Hei timatanga tapiri kau atu he kupu ki era atu o nga mihi i utaina ki roto i to tatau Whare i tenei ra. Kati e te whaea e Rai takoto. Takoto mai ra i roto i te whare i roto ano hoki i te whare tatai o Waikato ki nga tahataha o te awa me ana au. I pau i kawe atu to kaha kia ma kia harakore ai. Tera ano atu te au o Waikato ka hari i a koe ki te Tai Tamatane. Ka whai atu koe i te rerenga a to tupuna a Ueoneone ka hoki me ana kuia tokorua a Reitu a Reipae ki roto o Te Tai Tokerau. Ka whakauru atu koe ki roto i te moana tae noa ki Rotokakahi te piringa o Waikato ki a Ngapuhi Nui Tonu i tona wa. Katahi koe ka whakawhiti atu ki te puna e kore rawa e mimiti e kitea mai ana ki roto o Taumarere. Hei kona koe takoto ai hei kona koe okioki ai. Na reira e te whaea e moe moe oti atu. 
[ 
Greetings one and all. To begin with I would like to add some words of condolence to those expressed before the House today. Lady Raiha rest. Lie there in Waikato’s aristocratic house beside the river and currents that carried your strength as well as cleansed and purified you. Another of the Waikato River’s currents will take you to the west coast where you will follow the journey of your ancestor Ueoneone who returned to the far north with Reitu and Reipae the two sisters. You will travel across the sea to Kakahi a key connection between Waikato and Ngapuhi in days gone by. Then you will cross over to the spring that never runs dry which can be seen in Taumarere. Here you will lie and rest. Rest there eternally Raiha the matriarch. 
] 
It is a pleasure to stand very briefly and talk in favour of this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill. Let us bear in mind that this bill flowed from litigation that originated with the tribes in Te Tau Ihu who fought to secure marine farming rights and were denied that opportunity as a consequence of bureaucratic inflexibility and provincial prejudices within the local government community of that part of New Zealand. After a successful bout of litigation and the very highly publicised seabed and foreshore issue an attempt was made to address unsettled business flowing from the 1992 full and final fisheries settlement. I refer here to the Maori interests in the marine farming environment. That was undertaken at a time when there was great debate as to whether such a claim had any merit whatsoever. So at least it is pleasing this afternoon to see that both of the main parties are of one mind that there was merit to those claims and we are endeavouring to give effect to that today. 
The aquaculture industry already covers 5700 hectares of water and it generates somewhere between $350 million and $400 million worth of revenue. According to Doug Kidd in the early 1990s it was to be a $1 billion industry. As a consequence of this settlement Maori are finding a place in this industry. Although this industry has growth potential it needs to be pointed out that the growth can come only through stimulating greater market demand and making sure that the production process in the future for these exports whether they be oysters fish or mussels is operated in the most efficient way possible. Those Maori who acquire financial capital as a consequence of this settlement need to be very skilful in how they invest those moneys because the aquaculture industry is no El Dorado. 
We are told that the aquaculture industry can grow to 16000 hectares although possibly it will be arrested by those existing property right - holders in the marine environment who fear that the profligate spread of aquaculture space up and down the country that does not take an account of the undue adverse effects test on those who have prior property rights can end up pitting Maori against Maori marine farmer against commercial fisherman. But in terms of the passage of this legislation it is another goal that is being achieved. It is good that both major parties and their various supporters see merit in advancing it and the true test as to whether it is durable will depend on the quality of the stewardship of the people who take possession of this financial capital and invest it knowing that aquaculture is a long-term game. It is not a game where wealth can be created by simply claiming space through the Resource Management Act and then hoping to hock it off at an inflated value because capital is short in this industry. Capital is short throughout our entire economy and until Maori and suitable partners manage to amass the necessary level of capital we will not see a massive increase in the amount of farmable space. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 Amendments relating to remaining provisions of principal Act 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for accepting my call. I will canvass the clauses set out in Part 2 but before I do that I place on record my congratulations to the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee and to all the members of the select committee. Members may not have noticed this but most if not all of the bills that come back to the House from the Maori Affairs Committee do so with the unanimous support of that committee. It is no wonder that members on both sides of the Chamber join as one in commending the excellent work that the Maori Affairs Committee does. 
Having placed those comments on record I will cover a couple of provisions of Part 2. This part is the operative— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Which page? 
PAUL QUINN 
: It is Part 2—page— 
Simon Bridges 
: How many clauses? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —well there are a number of clauses in here. Firstly I will focus on clause 7 which sets out the Crown’s obligations in respect of this particular bill. Members will see a number of insertions are to be made into the principal Act and— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Amendments. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —these amendments; I thank my colleague—are the operative parts that enable— 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re pretty passionate about this aren’t you? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha; excuse me—the proposals to be carried out. Those proposals are to replace or bring into effect the fact that if you will the undertakings made in what has already been referred to quite correctly as the pre-commencement stage may be able to be fulfilled with a lump-sum payment. These provisions of this bill will enable that. 
I now move to clause 9 which is on the next page I say to Shane Jones. Members will see there some specitivity around or it makes some reference— 
Simon Bridges 
: Specitivity? What’s specitivity? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —to section 31 as amended by the substitution of new subsection (4). 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Oh this is really excruciating. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Please! 
Hone Harawira 
: Can you take your seat please Mr Quinn? 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am being distracted. 
Hone Harawira 
: You’re coming apart! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yeah. Just again focusing— 
Hone Harawira 
: Have some more oysters. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —ha ha—on that as I said I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to that section. I think that the rest of Part 2 is all pretty straightforward. 
My concluding remark is that I hope that brings a better understanding of the bill. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. After having followed that presentation which was defined— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Did you follow it? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I followed it not in a comprehension sense but perish the thought in the physical sense. I want to direct our attention to regional agreements and in particular to subsections (4) (5) (6) and (7) of new section 29A inserted by clause 8 of the bill. There is a lesson that has been applied in this section pointed out in subsection (6) where it states that “No court or tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the quantification or the adequacy of the benefits to be provided by or under a regional agreement.” Of course what this refers to—and I give full marks to the Maori Affairs Committee which worked through this legislation with the advisers—is that we will not see a reversion to the protracted debates as to who and which party should get which particular entitlement as a consequence of the regional agreements being agreed to. Maoridom has been blighted by no end of litigation as to what was an adequate entitlement in relation to the historic fisheries settlement. So without sounding too nauseous nga mihi. I acknowledge the chair and other members of the committee who have prevented a repetition of that. 
However the bill goes on to say—and the qualified senior lawyers in the House would know this—it is impossible to close down the right of appeal to the High Court. Indeed our party has learnt that as a consequence of the seabed and foreshore exercise. The High Court will have as part of its inherent jurisdiction I dare say under subsection (7) the ability to perform an interpretative function. As the regional agreements are entered into there will inevitably be conflict. Why will there be conflict? Because many of those agreements will reflect the ancestral aspirations of the hapu and tribes who have historically occupied harbours and other areas along the takutai moana along the foreshore. They will have had over the years their own favoured sites for mataitai gathering etc. and the regional agreements are really an attempt to shoehorn them into an industry. These agreements cannot be based on a static view of where and how Maori live along the coast because aquaculture at the end of the day derives its revenue and its power in terms of an economic force from international markets. So that is a very sensible contribution in my view. 
For those participants who cannot get their affairs into order or who acknowledge that they actually need a trustee to enter into the regional agreements on their behalf the trustee will be required to abide by actionable obligations—actionable duties. But it is always a double-edged sword when one provides justiciable ability in relation to Maori issues. What might be settled on the marae—I can assure members that getting agreement over seafood assets is no mean task—through negotiation needs only one party to feel slighted about before that party dashes off to find an ever-ready lawyer whose contribution is inversely related to his or her cost structure and then one is back to somewhere near zero. So the fact that the duties of trustees enable them to enter into such regional agreements and be bound by those agreements is very sensible providing it does not lead to a fresh bout of litigation. 
In addition to that the reference to the trustees is important because the participants in the regional agreements must focus on aquaculture as part of the New Zealand resource-based economy not focus on it being a new theatre for conducting historic and largely irrelevant debates that have very little to do with the future economic pathway of Maoridom and more to do with recitations of history of a time that has passed us by. It is likely to become particularly problematic and vexatious when we get to the point of making decisions about harbours because some harbours are regarded as areas for collecting spat. Others are regarded as areas for growing the mature product into a form that the market can absorb. I support having less litigation and more economic activity. Kia ora tatou. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
The Prime Minister said in his statement to Parliament that he wants to give the single economic market a new impetus this year and this bill is part of that programme. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill simplifies the process for resolving civil disputes with a trans-Tasman element making it easier to resolve these disputes more efficiently and at lower cost. It will also reduce impediments to enforcing civil penalties and certain regulatory fines across the Tasman. The bill will implement the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement that was signed by the previous Government in Christchurch on 24 July 2008. 
In November last year I was privileged to be invited on to the floor of the Australian Federal Parliament as the Attorney-General Robert McClelland introduced parallel legislation. That legislation has now been passed by both Australian Houses and is awaiting the Royal assent. As indicated at the start of this speech I will be seeking a shortened select committee period so that we can move as quickly as possible to the final stages necessary to implement the agreement given the progress that the Australians have made to date. 
Currently with a few exceptions New Zealand and Australia treat each other in the same way as any other foreign country when it comes to cross-border court proceedings. This is clearly undesirable given our unique relationship and the commitments we have made to reducing barriers to trade. This bill will enable closer integration of our civil justice systems. That will benefit both countries and progress in this area reflects our close relationship our common legal heritage and the confidence we have in each other’s judicial and regulatory institutions. 
I would like to briefly outline some important measures in the bill. The bill simplifies the service of civil court proceedings. It will enable a statement of claim filed in a New Zealand court to be served on someone in Australia as of right. The plaintiff will not have to prove a connection between the proceedings and New Zealand or to seek leave of the court. This bill and its Australian equivalent will adopt a common give-way rule for deciding which country’s court should hear a dispute. At present New Zealand and Australian courts apply different tests to decide this issue which can lead to unnecessary expense and uncertainty. The bill will also expand the range of Australian court judgments that can be enforced in New Zealand and simplify the process for enforcing them. Currently only final money judgments from one country may be enforced in the other. This bill extends this to include final non-money judgments such as an injunction. The only ground for not enforcing an Australian judgment will be public policy. Any challenge that goes to the merits of a judgment will have to be raised with the original court. 
The bill also introduces new measures to improve regulatory enforcement. New Zealand and Australia both have a strong mutual interest in the integrity of trans-Tasman markets and the effective enforcement of each other’s regulatory regimes. The bill allows all Australian civil pecuniary penalties to be enforced in New Zealand unless they are specifically excluded from the regime. Equally the Australian legislation contains mirror provisions enabling New Zealand civil penalties to be enforced there. Criminal fines play an important role in encouraging compliance with regulatory regimes. The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill will allow criminal fines under certain regulatory regimes to be enforced in the same way as a civil judgment debt is. It is intended to apply only to those regulatory regimes that affect the integrity effectiveness and efficiency of trans-Tasman markets. 
The bill simplifies the conduct of court proceedings in other ways. For example it encourages greater use of technology so that parties and their lawyers with leave of the court may take part in New Zealand civil proceedings from Australia by audio or video link. Needless to say requiring parties based in Australia to attend court in person is inconvenient and costly and can add to delays. But it is not only businesses that will benefit. For example an individual whose former partner moves to Australia before they reach an agreement on how to divide their relationship property will benefit from the simplified procedures and reduced costs. 
This bill offers direct benefits for both New Zealanders and the New Zealand economy. New Zealand’s relationship with Australia is our most important and Closer Economic Relations has set a global benchmark for free trade. Now is the time to build on that success through the single economic market programme by simplifying and improving the process for resolving trans-Tasman civil disputes. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. Obviously I have been involved in this legislation for quite some time. I was originally involved as the Associate Minister of Justice in 2003 and was instrumental in establishing the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. So it was certainly very satisfying to be able to sign the agreement on behalf of the New Zealand Government back in 2008. I think it was a very good occasion and I really enjoyed it. I recall Justice French hosting the occasion at the Christchurch High Court. It is the only time I have sat on the bench and I have to say the view is good from up there but I would not really like to be a judge. It is probably an experience that I will park as a happy memory rather than something that I would be ambitious to achieve in a future legal career. 
The preamble to the agreement is worth recording. I will not read it into the record but I will summarise its main features. First of all it acknowledges our longstanding friendship close historic political and economic relationship and of course the Closer Economic Relations agreement itself. I think it is worth noting for the record that it is this weekend when we celebrate I think the 27th anniversary of the signing of CER on 28 March 1983. It is quite a substantial event that is coming up. I am aware of that date because when I signed the agreement on behalf of New Zealand we were in the 25th anniversary year of CER. We are now 2 years down the track. I think it is quite significant that we are very close to the actual date of the anniversary of the signing of CER back in 1983. 
The second thing the preamble does is acknowledge each other’s confidence in the other’s judicial and regulatory institutions. I think that is quite a powerful expression. It enables both jurisdictions to essentially give up something in order to know that they will be in a good strong position regardless of on which side of the Tasman Sea a particular action is being mounted. The third thing is that it affirms the shared commitment to appropriate and effective resolution of trans-Tasman civil disputes and increased regulatory cooperation. Of course that is a major platform of the Single Economic Market (SEM) agenda which I had much involvement in myself as Minister of Commerce in the previous Government. Finally it agrees to build on the existing cooperative regime regulating the taking of evidence and associated court procedures in order to further streamline aspects of civil court proceedings and regulatory enforcement and reduce unnecessary procedural and regulatory business in the conduct of litigation. There is a long list of things that the agreement does but in essence it simplifies the trans-Tasman service of court proceedings and enforcements of judgments it expands the range of enforceable judgments and it improves regulatory enforcement of civil pecuniary penalties and certain criminal regulatory fines. 
I congratulate the Government on retaining the regulatory impact statement within the explanatory note of the bill. I know that the Government has made a decision to take the regulatory impact statements out of printed bills and have them available only on the Treasury website. I state again for the record that I think that is a mistake. It is incredibly useful for MPs in the House to be able to pick up the bill off the Table of the House and see the process that the Government has gone through in a quality regulatory impact-analysis way. I really do reinforce how worthwhile they are and this bill is a very good case in point. 
This bill has an excellent regulatory impact statement within it. The reason I say that is that it does exactly what a regulatory impact statement should do—it states the public policy objectives of the legislation up front. We have a very clear statement of what the legislation is designed to achieve. It states: “The public policy objective for trans-Tasman court proceedings is to achieve closer integration between the New Zealand and Australian civil justice systems in order to—make resolution of civil dispute with a trans-Tasman element simpler less costly and more efficient; and make any remedies more effective; and support the success of the trade relationship between New Zealand and Australia.” Within those three short statements we have encapsulated the public policy objective of the legislation. Then it goes on to state a further objective which is “to improve the enforcement of various regulatory regimes in which both countries have a strong mutual interest”. It talks about reducing incentives for people to move themselves or their assets to the other country to put them beyond reach of a regulatory regime and to avoid enforcement gaps that would otherwise exist. We all know examples of people who have gone to Australia in order to avoid obligations that they have in New Zealand. This obviously is a public policy statement of some merit and something that all sides of the House can support. 
The next element of a regulatory impact statement is to set out all of the options. This bill does that. It actually sets out four options not just one or two. Firstly it starts with the status quo and in doing that it identifies the flaws of the current arrangements. Secondly it talks about strengthening the existing legislation which is the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 and its Australian counterpart the Foreign Judgments Act 1991. But as the regulatory impact statement spells out that is only a partial solution. It would not be in the interest of good governance to pick that up as an option. The third option is legislation based on the Brussels model which is about easing the enforcement of civil judgments between EU member States and it talks about mirror legislation being required in Australia. Again that has some limitations and it has been identified and spelt out in the regulatory impact statement of the bill. Where more than one court has jurisdiction priority is decided by a first-to-file rule. What we are adopting between Australia and New Zealand is a give-way rule. That has considerable merit I think over the first-to-file rule because we know that there are limitations with that first-to-file rule from time to time. 
The preferred option option 4 which is set out in the regulatory impact statement is this bill the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It is based on the agreement that I signed back in 2008 with the Hon Robert McClelland the Attorney-General of Australia. I think this is an excellent example of why regulatory impact statements should be included with bills that are tabled in the House. I know that I could have gone to the website and downloaded the regulatory impact statement if it had not been printed in here—that is exactly what I had to do for the next bill we will be debating on the Order Paper the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. That is one of the most important bills on financial regulation that this House will deal with this year and it does not have a regulatory impact statement with it. I will certainly come back to that when we get to that bill. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill on the other hand has an excellent summary of how the Government came to the conclusion that it was good for New Zealand. It is good for Australia but most importantly it is good for the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. It reduces compliance costs for business. I think that when all of those boxes have been ticked it has to be a step in the right direction. Labour will be supporting the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. I certainly commend it to the House. I am really disappointed that I will not be on the Justice and Electoral Committee which will consider it in detail but I am sure those who have that privilege and advantage will feel that they are doing a worthy exercise on behalf of the House as a whole. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very positive to speak on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill because I am sure there will not be a party in this Parliament that fundamentally disagrees with it. I think we have a broad consensus in this Parliament for a seamless operating environment for businesses between Australia and New Zealand. We have a consensus for a closer relationship between our two countries—two countries but one market if you like is what we are working towards. As I said I think it makes this very positive. 
I want to talk in a generalised sense about the nuts and bolts of this bill then talk about what it represents. What it represents is quite significant. It represents closer relations and excellent relations between our Prime Ministers our justice Ministers and our officials right on down. I agreed with the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Minister Power when they said it shows how we on both sides of the Tasman can have real confidence in our judiciary. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill implements a treaty between New Zealand and Australia. It has one aim: to make it easier to resolve civil legal disputes with connections on both sides of the Tasman. The bill which is highly complex and technical will apply to a broad range of civil disputes benefiting both businesses and individuals. We understand that it would be complex because over a long period of time many countries including our own have built up procedures that become quite different from other countries. To unravel that to systematise things and to rationalise things so that there is a seamless relationship between countries takes some doing. 
It will also allow for appearances by video link from one country to the other. Today we have already gone through a reading on another bill that provides for greater video link in our courts domestically. I think it is excellent that we are also doing this trans-Tasman so that businesses are spared the costs of interlocutory matters and adjournments and the like and having to fly the Tasman with all the consequences that go with that not only financial but also in terms of carbon miles and the like. 
The bill also allows the enforcement of regulatory regimes supporting trans-Tasman markets. As I have already said it is worth noting that this bill is where it is today because of a number of players most significantly at that high level between Prime Ministers where there is a warm working relationship and greater integration occurring at a regular and reasonably swift pace then down to the Ministers of Justice level where I know Minister Power has been working hard and often with his colleagues on the other side of the Tasman and in various states and at official level and downwards. 
A working-group was established that has drilled down if you like and made this bill possible in terms of getting into the detail. That group comprised senior officials from the relevant Government agencies in both Australia and New Zealand. I will not go through its recommendations one by one and line by line but they are of interest. One of their recommendations was that the proposed regime would allow initiating process and civil proceedings issued out of a court in Australia or New Zealand to be served in the other country with the same effect as if service had occurred in the country of issue. It seems to me that that is very significant because any litigation lawyer will say that just domestically trying to serve another party or group to a proceeding causes enough hassle as it is in terms of trying to find them along with the rigmarole one has to go through when that party cannot be found with substituted service and the like. We have rationalised that and made that seamless on both sides of the Tasman and I think that is very good. Again it goes towards cutting down business costs and compliance costs and pushing for one market so that a business in Palmerston Australia can do business with Palmerston North New Zealand as if we were one. 
Having talked about some of those nuts and bolts and some of the things this bill does I again reflect on the significance of this bill in a broader lens. It reflects the general commitment on both sides of the Tasman to enhance the operation of the single economic market. It reflects the warmth of relations and the absolute confidence we can have in first-class judiciaries on both sides of the Tasman and long may that continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already said on Labour’s behalf we intend to support this measure. 
The bill’s background is well set out in the regulatory impact statement where the linkages between New Zealand and Australia are set out. It is probably worth repeating some of those facts to the House: “in 2006 over 900000 Australians visited New Zealand and well over 1 000 000 New Zealanders visited Australia … in the year to June 2006 exports of goods from Australia to New Zealand came to NZ$7641 million and from New Zealand to Australia to NZ$6806 million:”. Those two figures were for the export of goods. In terms of services services from New Zealand to Australia were $2.3 billion and from Australia to New Zealand they were $3.5 billion. As well as that there were very significant investments: about $68 billion of Australian investments in New Zealand and about $25 billion of New Zealand investments in Australia. 
The first point to make in respect of those trade figures is rather tangential to this bill. It is that there is a trade imbalance with Australia which reflects the fact that the Australians have a more successful economy than ours. In my view this reflects a fundamental difference between savings and investment policy on either side of the Tasman. Australia has long had a very good savings record; it does it through workplace savings for superannuation. Australians have had workplace savings for superannuation on a compulsory basis now for a couple of decades. In contrast New Zealand has not despite the good efforts of Sir Roger Douglas—back under the Kirk Government—in designing a suitable scheme which was then trashed by Mr Muldoon in order to buy his way into success in the election in 1972 or 1975. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: 1975. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was the 1975 election; I thank Sir Roger for that. Since that time New Zealand has not really caught up with Australia in terms of savings and investment. That is probably the main underlying reason why Australia has a trade surplus with New Zealand: it has deeper investment markets and it has more money to invest in productive enterprise and to spend on the purchase of New Zealand businesses than we have to spend on the purchase of theirs. As a consequence we suffer in comparison with Australia. 
This measure is good but it causes me to reflect on some of the things that this Government is not doing in terms of bridging this gap between Australia and New Zealand. The Government says that one of its driving ambitions is to close the gap between New Zealand and Australia but these regulatory measures do not actually cut the mustard. They are good things to do and I do not disapprove of their being done; indeed this bill is a result of work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel under a Labour-led Government. But the underlying reality is that the Government is not improving New Zealand’s saving and investment record in any material way. Indeed it has done some things to its disadvantage. 
It has missed opportunities to make fundamental changes to the economy. It had a good considered report from a tax working group. Commissioning that report was wise on the part of the Government but when it got it it just picked out the eyes that National would ordinarily pick out of any such policy. It did what it always does. It will end up increasing the relative tax burden of low and middle income people to the benefit of higher-income people who will get most of the tax breaks. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to come back to the subject. This bill is about trans-Tasman proceedings not solely about New Zealand. I ask the member to bring his debate back to that subject. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Coming back to the bill I say that that is the reason why the regulatory impact statement records such a gap in the export of goods from Australia to New Zealand compared with the smaller amount we export to Australia and why we have a trade balance. 
The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill obviously does some sensible things. Firstly at the moment a judgment in an Australian court for anything other than a sum of money cannot automatically be enforced in New Zealand. This bill fixes that by saying that if there is an appropriate judgment in an Australian court then it can be enforced in New Zealand—whether it is a simple judgment on a debt or it arises from some other cause of action such as breach of contract tort or whatever cause. Secondly it says that proceedings commenced in an Australian jurisdiction can be served here. Thirdly it says that where Australian proceedings are afoot in Australia interim relief can sometimes be granted in New Zealand under those proceedings. So if there is an Australian proceeding where assets sitting in New Zealand might be at risk and there is some desire to get some interim injunctive relief to stop the disposal of those assets that sort of thing could occur. Someone could come to the New Zealand courts and say on the basis of those Australian proceedings that those assets ought not to be shuffled out of New Zealand to some other jurisdiction—and out of the jurisdiction of any court to attach—should the court action in Australia be successful. There are some areas where interim relief cannot be granted. I am not 100 percent sure of the meaning of those clauses but I will be interested to better understand the detail of those provisions at select committee where I am sure they will be clarified. 
In terms of choice of jurisdiction there are protections in this bill to make sure that people do not just choose the jurisdiction they think will be best for their case in terms of the differences in the law between Australia and New Zealand rather than choosing the proper and best court depending on the background to the case. There is ability here for the court to say that the case should not be heard in its jurisdiction and a stay of proceedings can be applied for in a New Zealand civil proceeding if the court is convinced that Australia is the more appropriate forum for the hearing of that dispute. 
Another provision is that the courts can now enforce contractual agreements between the parties as to their court of choice. When parties enter into a commercial arrangement they can agree in advance what court will resolve their disputes. It can be quite common for a New Zealand business doing business with an Australian-based company to agree in their contract that the contract disputes will be determined in Australia according to Australian law or in New Zealand according to New Zealand law. In either case those agreements will now be able to be enforced. In the case of an agreement to litigate in New Zealand it would be enforced by this legislation and a New Zealand court; in respect of agreements to litigate in Australia the companion legislation which will be passing through the Australian legislature will have a similar effect. 
Another important change made by the bill is the facilitation of remote appearances and the remote giving of evidence on both sides of the Tasman. It will be made easier which is appropriate. We had a discussion earlier in the day about its being more appropriate in respect of civil proceedings than in respect of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings the defendant has the right to see the witnesses and to test their evidence in a way that is more important given the risk to their liberty if they are convicted of a crime than the less important considerations of personal liberty that arise in respect of civil proceedings which this bill deals with. 
Another part of this bill gives force to various tribunal findings which will now be able to be enforced in New Zealand. In other words some of the ways in which judgments can be forced will apply to decisions not just of Australian courts but also of certain other listed tribunals. That too is appropriate. 
As Lianne Dalziel said this bill has a good regulatory impact statement. I must say I find it beneficial that it is included in the bill. Although in a perfect world we would have a lot more time to prepare before we speak on these debates on occasion we come here without having had the opportunity to download the regulatory impact statement. I think it is useful for members and it aids the integrity of the regulatory impact statement process if the regulatory impact statement is included in the bill rather than put in some other document. It enables people who are interested in those matters to have easy access to them so that they can assess for themselves whether the proposed regulatory move is justified. In this case I think the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this new regulation giving power to enforce judgments arising from Australian courts and making— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member’s time has expired. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party regards this Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill as introducing an improved legal framework for addressing trans-Tasman civil disputes and as such it should make it easier for such disputes to be resolved more quickly and more cheaply. The bill also provides for the greater use of video and audio conferencing which has environmental benefits as well as efficiency benefits. 
A potential issue with the bill is that it helps set up a regulatory framework that could facilitate further economic integration between Australia and New Zealand in terms of CER and the single economic market. We do not think that this in itself is a strong enough reason to vote against the bill as the general impact will be positive. 
One technical issue with the bill is that it might allow a litigant to lodge proceedings in one jurisdiction without proving that it is the most appropriate place to do so. That is to say he or she could lodge a proceeding in New Zealand without proving that it is more appropriate to do so here than in Australia. The defendant in that situation could apply for a stay of proceedings to stop inappropriate jurisdiction being used but this moves the onus of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant which would be an unusual development. 
We think this issue should be explored at the Justice and Electoral Committee but with due regard to those passing concerns we are positively disposed towards the bill and we support its referral to the select committee. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a brief speech to reiterate Labour’s support for the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. It arises from work done by the fifth Labour Government. In 2003 Helen Clark along with John Howard set up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement. The working-group identified ways to streamline the process for resolving civil proceedings involving a trans-Tasman element. The group’s recommendations were incorporated into the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement which was signed in 2008. 
New Zealand and Australia have two of the most closely aligned or integrated economies in the world. Every day there is huge movement of people assets and services between the two countries. Of course this means that disputes with a cross-border element will inevitably arise. This bill is therefore very important as it facilitates the efficient and effective resolution of such disputes. These reforms are important for all businesses and individuals who could be involved in trans-Tasman disputes. For them this bill will make the justice system more efficient and more affordable to use. It will simplify trans-Tasman court proceedings and make dispute resolution much easier. 
These reforms are also important for the future of closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. This bill provides support for the trans-Tasman trade relationship and removes barriers to that relationship. It more closely integrates the civil justice systems of the two countries and the passing of this bill will also mean that regulatory enforcement between New Zealand and Australia is greatly improved. This bill is enormously significant for closer economic relations between New Zealand and Australia. It will bring our two separate legal systems into alignment in a way that is unprecedented anywhere in the world. It is symbolic of our close and unique relationship that New Zealand and Australia can work like this to allow for ever closer cooperation between individuals and business across the Tasman. 
Acknowledgment should be made to Simon Power for introducing this bill and to the fifth Labour Government for setting up the Trans-Tasman Working Group on Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement in 2003 and for signing the agreement on trans-Tasman court proceedings and regulatory enforcement in 2008. This bill concludes the excellent work done by the previous Government on reforming the process for resolution of disputes with a trans-Tasman element. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. The 2006 report  
Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 reckoned that there were about 120000 Maori living in different parts of Australia. It listed a number of reasons why Maori have chosen to move to what has been called the lucky country: lifestyle climate economic opportunity higher wages and a lower cost of living. Mind you there is also a series of more negative factors which forced Maori to leave Aotearoa: prejudice from Pakeha mainstream negativity about Maori issues negative attitudes towards success within their own whanau the ugly side of domestic violence and the impact of drugs gangs and crime. Members of the Maori Party have been over there a few times and we have seen the full extent of the challenges people face in trying to maintain Maori cultural practice and nurture their sense of Maori identity; and despite the best efforts of whanau here to entice their loved ones home again it is fair to conclude that there will continue to be a significant number of Maori who call Australia home. 
In particular whanau employed in construction mining security community services and various trades happily call states such as Queensland and Western Australia in particular a blue-collar paradise. This bill recognises the huge increase in the movement of people assets and services between both countries with nearly 450000 Kiwis living over there and apparently some 60000 Aussies living here. Exports from Australia to New Zealand total about $8 billion and exports the other way total about $7 billion. Apparently it is much the same for services with about $3 billion going either way. 
The area of real difference is the level of investment with total Australian investment here being about $70 billion and total New Zealand investment over there being about $25 billion. That is what this bill is all about—the challenges posed by trans-Tasman trade relationships—because the growing levels of investment and the export and import of goods and services bring with them a greater number of disputes involving those working across borders. The bill puts in place dispute resolution processes that are cheaper more efficient and less complicated and can deliver tangible results to individuals and businesses in both countries. Hopefully this bill will help streamline the process for registering and enforcing court judgments facilitate the greater use of technology to enable parties to appear in proceedings in either country and ensure that fines imposed in either country for regulatory crimes can be enforced in both countries. For those reasons and others the Maori Party will be supporting the bill at this stage. Kia ora tatou. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena ano tatou huri noa i to tatou Whare. I am pleased to take a short call on the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill. The importance of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand has been long recognised on this side of the Tasman as well as on the other side of the Tasman. The relationship between our two countries canvasses a number of dimensions and the bill before the House tonight gives us the opportunity to cement further a strong foundation to support that relationship. Tourism occurs between our two countries a range of business occurs between our two countries and as previous speakers have already mentioned we have a number of family connections across the Tasman between our two countries. 
My colleague Hone Harawira mentioned the report  
Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i Te Ao Moemoea 
 which was published in 2006. It gave a comprehensive report on the nature extent and degree of Maori travel to and settlement in Australia. I am delighted to say that in my former incarnation as the deputy secretary of Te Puni Kokiri I had the foresight to commission that report because I was concerned to ensure that we did have a fuller understanding of the nature of the Maori population settled in Australia. Of course even though Maori live in other countries whether it be in Australia or in any other part of the world their relationship and their status as tangata whenua of Aotearoa New Zealand is not compromised and those ongoing relationships remain important to us. 
This bill provides as I said another dimension of the framework of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand by proposing to cement in place a civil justice relationship. The bill reflects the commitment of both Governments to enhance the operation of a single economic market between our two countries. Our Prime Minister John Key emphasised the importance of the single economic market when he outlined the Government’s programme for the year in the statement he made to the House in February. He said that the Government intended to push hard for progress on the single economic market. Australia is often the first stop for New Zealand businesses looking to expand into overseas markets but getting to grips with the different Federal and state regulations can sometimes be a significant challenge. The single economic market is about aligning the regulatory environments in New Zealand and in Australia so that a New Zealand company operating in Kawakawa or Kaitaia can as easily do so in Canberra or indeed so that a New Zealand company operating in Ruatoria can as easily do so in Sydney. We want to give the single economic market a new impetus this year and that is something our Prime Minister will be discussing with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. 
This bill is an important step towards closer integration of the Australian and New Zealand civil justice systems which will underpin those aspirations for greater stronger and more positive relationships between our two countries. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call to add to the words of the previous speaker and speakers before me on this side. As has been said this bill really arises from the work done by the previous Labour Government. It is quite significant that this work started with John Howard and Helen Clark way back in 2003 and it is really interesting that we are here in 2010—7 years later. That shows how long it takes to do things properly when one is trying to get a trans-Tasman agreement and then trying to get supporting legislation in both countries to any trans-Tasman agreement. These reforms will make legal proceedings between the two countries much easier. Another benefit is that they will be much more affordable. So the bill works towards the closer economic relations plank that the two countries have. 
I commend some of the people who have worked on the bill particularly David Goddard QC. He was a member of the trans-Tasman working-group which reported back to the Labour-led Government in 2005. He pointed out that these proposals are the most far reaching between two sovereign States with separate legal systems. Today Minister Simon Power mentioned that the enabling legislation has been tabled already in Australia and this side will not get in the way of New Zealand’s legislation being progressed through all stages. 
I feel it is important to acknowledge the work of the previous Minister Lianne Dalziel. She signed the agreement between New Zealand and Australia in Christchurch in 2008 so one can see how long these steps take. Something like this cannot be supercharged; it had to go through the Australian system and then our legislation has to take its pathway. 
This bill is great work and now Labour is in Opposition and we have a National-led Prime Minister working with an Australian Labor-led Prime Minister. It shows how close both countries are with our intent to do what we can where we can as two countries to make relationships work more smoothly and to have our legislation more aligned. We support this legislation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is interesting: there must be an outbreak of love this afternoon. I note that this is the Government’s third bill that has come before the House this afternoon and both sides of the House are in full agreement in supporting all the bills before us. I also note that the Opposition took the time to move a motion of congratulations to one of our esteemed MPs so this is perhaps a great day of love that has broken out. 
I want to focus on a couple of things that other speakers have commented on and I agree with them. The bill is highly technical but it focuses on a further step if you will in the growing relationship with our near neighbours in Australia. But there is one aspect that I do not think has been covered and which I think is very important to note for the record. We have obviously reflected that this bill will assist in progressing civil proceedings much more efficiently and in particular will improve the effectiveness of any remedies awarded. It is particularly important to note that the biggest beneficiaries will be medium to small businesses. We know that the big corporates have the resources to take things to extreme and one might say play hard ball when things are not going their way. The small to medium sized enterprises have great difficulty in firstly taking action and secondly—depending on the success or otherwise—being able to pursue the remedies that may have been awarded to them. They have had difficulty and had to go to great expense to pursue those awards. I am very pleased to be able to support this bill simply because the greatest beneficiaries will be small to medium sized businesses. 
The other aspect I want to comment on as have other speakers from the Opposition is the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill. I note that it canvasses some of the economic indicators contained in the bill and although I note that I was somewhat disappointed with the contribution of David Parker to this debate it is worth recording that the very steps this Government is taking—and this bill is one of them—are all aimed at improving the economic position of New Zealand relative to Australia. We are doing that so that New Zealand can once again reverse what occurred under the previous administration whereby our relative position was going backwards. With those few remarks I join with others in recommending the bill for its first reading. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 29 July 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 June 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill establishes a licensing regime for trustees and statutory supervisors who supervise certain issuers of securities or retirement villages. It also provides for the Securities Commission to be notified by trustees or statutory supervisors when any issuer they supervise gets into difficulties and gives the Securities Commission enhanced power to intervene in these circumstances. The role of trustees and statutory supervisors is vitally important in ensuring that the interests of investors are properly protected. Their role is to monitor the issuers of certain types of securities to ensure that the issuer is complying with the terms of its offer to investors and other obligations. Where the issuer fails to comply the trustee or statutory supervisor has a duty to take appropriate steps to protect the interests of investors. However in recent times serious weaknesses have been identified in the supervision of issuers by trustees and statutory supervisors. As far back as 2004 the IMF and the World Bank identified that New Zealand placed heavy reliance on private supervisors like corporate trustees and that there was insufficient accountability for such supervisors. The finance company collapses have highlighted many areas of concern including a failure by some trustees to carry out their role to the expected standard due to a lack of capability and a lack of accountability to investors. 
A well functioning financial sector needs to provide the necessary protections to investors while at the same time ensuring that businesses are able to access capital as easily as possible. Trustees and statutory supervisors have a key role to play in ensuring that the interests of investors are protected and in doing so contributing to confidence in the market. For this reason I asked officials to break out development of a trustee supervisory model from the wider review of the Securities Act and put it on a faster track. The result is that this bill will establish a licensing regime covering trustees of issuers of debt securities statutory supervisors of issuers of participatory securities and trustees of unit trusts as well as retirement village statutory supervisors. 
The bill removes the automatic right of trustee corporations to act as trustees or statutory supervisors and requires that all trustees be licensed by the Securities Commission. In deciding whether to grant a licence the Securities Commission must have regard to a number of factors including the applicant’s monitoring systems and processes the experience and qualifications of the senior directors and managers and the applicant’s financial strength. Licences may last for up to 5 years and may be subject to conditions imposed by the commission. Trustees and statutory supervisors will also be subject to stringent monitoring requirements including 6-monthly reports confirming their ongoing compliance with their licence and any conditions imposed upon it. In addition trustees and statutory supervisors will be required to report to the Securities Commission any actual or potential breach of the terms of their licence and any material change in their circumstances that may impact on their ability to continue to carry out their role. In doing so trustees and statutory supervisors will also be required to provide the commission with an action plan stating what steps they will take to address the breach of the licensing criteria or material change in their circumstances. 
If the commission is not satisfied with the steps that the trustee or statutory supervisor proposes it may direct the trustee to take a particular action or vary the terms of the trustee’s licence. In the most serious cases the commission may revoke the trustee or statutory supervisor’s right to act in respect of particular appointments or cancel the licence altogether. There are also stringent penalties in the bill for trustees or statutory supervisors that fail to comply with their obligations including fines of up to $200000 and orders that will require the trustees to compensate investors for loss that arises out of their failure to comply with their obligations. 
However the bill goes beyond simply ensuring that trustees and statutory supervisors are competent to carry out their role. Part 3 also gives the Securities Commission the power to oversee how they act on behalf of investors in crisis situations. Trustees and statutory supervisors will be required to report to the Securities Commission if any issuer they supervise is likely to breach the terms of the offer or the trust deed is insolvent or is likely to become insolvent. At the same time trustees and statutory supervisors will be required to outline to the commission the steps they intend to take in response. The commission will also have the power to require trustees or statutory supervisors to attest as to whether the issuer is complying with its obligations. The bill provides the Securities Commission with powers to intervene directly in circumstances where there is a significant risk that investors’ interests will be materially prejudiced and the trustee or statutory supervisor has failed to take the necessary steps. In these situations the commission may either direct the trustee to take a particular action or apply to court directly for an order to protect investors’ interests. Amongst other things these court orders may amend the terms of the trust deed impose restrictions on the activities of the issuer or require the appointment of a receiver or manager of the property that constitutes the security. 
The bill also applies the licensing regime to retirement village statutory supervisors. The role of retirement village statutory supervisors in monitoring the financial position of a village involves a broadly similar range of skills as a trustee or statutory supervisor of an issuer. In addition many of the concerns raised about the performance of some trustees and statutory supervisors have also been raised in respect of some retirement village statutory supervisors. These concerns include not working through the problems of financial inadequacy on the part of the village in an appropriate way with the operator and in some cases a lack of proven analysis by some statutory supervisors of village operators’ financial reports. However Part 3 does not apply to retirement village statutory supervisors as it is not intended to give the Securities Commission a role in overseeing the broader retirement village sector. Under the bill the commission’s role in respect of the retirement village sector is solely confined to ensuring that retirement village statutory supervisors have the capability to carry out their role to the required standard. 
Finally I note that the bill does not currently cover trustees of superannuation and KiwiSaver schemes. Although there are some differences in the role of superannuation and KiwiSaver trustees and other trustees and statutory supervisors in light of recent events there is a legitimate question as to whether some or all superannuation and KiwiSaver trustees should be included within the licensing regime established by the bill. I am inviting the select committee to consider that issue in the course of its deliberations. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will support the first reading of this bill and its referral to the Commerce Committee but that is as far as I can commit our support. It is interesting that with the benefit of hindsight and some distance from the pressure of ministerial deadlines I find it hard to recall why we need to have trustees performing what is now clearly defined in this bill as the role of the middleman. I think there are way more important issues in terms of securities law that we have to be getting on with but that is not a top priority for the Government. 
I am extremely disappointed to find out that we have an early report back foisted on us by decree in the House. I am the chair of the Commerce Committee and even I was not told that there is a report-back date expected for this bill—one of the most significant bills we have had to address as part of regulatory reform in this area—of 30 June. I do not know whether my deputy chair had been informed of that but it would have been nice to receive a phone call just to be informed that that was the Minister’s desire. I totally oppose that report-back date. This is a far more important issue than it would allow. It means that we can allow less than 6 weeks for the calling of submissions. We will have to hear the submissions very very quickly and then we will have to be in a position to report back to the House by 30 June. I do not think that is right or fair to the investors of New Zealand who have felt utterly and completely hammered by the lack of regulation in this area. Regulating quickly does not actually assist them with the problem. 
I remember asking the Securities Commission a question at a select committee hearing earlier this year about whether we needed trustees any more and whether the role of the trustee corporations was needed having been exposed by the Companies Office at the select committee last year as having failed abysmally in their obligations to investors. I remember asking the commission why if that was the role of the middleman that we now have we did not just beef up the role of the Securities Commission. Of course the Securities Commission were not in a position to respond to that. But they said that that was what happened in Australia in 1999. Australia did away with trustee corporations as middlemen and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has control of the supervision of the non-bank deposit-taking sector. So the finance companies are covered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and not by individual trustee corporations. 
Maybe the events of the past 4 years demand something a little bit better of the Government and of this House than simply tightening the supervision of the supervisors such as beefing up the role of the Securities Commission and exponentially increasing its powers. I favour that. I think our Securities Commission needs more teeth. I think that our Securities Commission needs more resources in order to take on the demands that it has in this very very difficult market. The Government has already announced that it will look at the super-regulator that was proposed by the Capital Market Development Taskforce. Yet the golden opportunity to look at one aspect of the supervisory regime is being completely squandered by this bill—completely squandered. To then say that we have to report back to the House by 30 June is just adding insult to injury. It is absolutely unreasonable for this House to debate this issue under those kinds of pressures. It is far far too important. 
I ask members when this bill was tabled. I think it was tabled in Parliament on 15 December last year. We are already in March this year. If it was so important and if the time frame was so tight why did the Minister of Commerce not put it up the Order Paper earlier on in the year? We could have got on with it before now. I think that all of the people who will want to make submissions on this important bill will be appalled at the Government’s arrogance and its lack of respect for the people involved in the industry by its allowing such a short time for the bill to be considered by our select committee and then ultimately reported back to the House. The early report back for the bill has already excited enormous unfavourable comment from the financial sector. My view is that we have to take the time to get the legislative framework right. It is far too important to allow for a once-over-lightly response which is what this Government seems to find acceptable. 
What has happened in New Zealand should be a warning to all of us. I admit that I was the Minister of Commerce at the time that the finance companies failed. But at the time they were failing at the very beginning I was already in the process of regulating the financial sector. The Review of Financial Products and Providers was already out for consultation before the first of three finance companies fell over in 2006. I announced the main decisions arising out the Review of Financial Products and Providers in June 2007 a matter of days before Bridgecorp fell over. Then it was like a set of dominoes or a house of cards; they all came tumbling down. It was not surprising because it was not like a run on a bank; those people had their money invested in term deposits and they sat there holding their breath waiting for that term to expire. Then they pulled out their money. Reinvestment rates plummeted. That is why we had a crisis on our hands. Getting people to reinvest in that environment was something that a number of individuals tried to continue to do even though they knew that their companies were on the brink of failure. That is criminal and it is unacceptable. I said this last week in a speech I gave as I launched my member’s bill. I think we should be ashamed at the behaviour of some of the individuals out there who call themselves our top business leaders and who were prepared to allow people to invest their money knowing full well that it would never see the light of day again. 
As for the moratoria that were imposed on a number of unwitting individuals how can members in this House seriously think that people who did not have enough financial acumen to make the right decision for the original investment were going to make the right decision on moratoria? We have seen the results of that. I remember when the Securities Commission came to the select committee and we asked it about the moratoria. It said that people were in a state of shock that they could not allow for the totality of loss to crystallise by agreeing to a receivership and that is why they agreed to moratoria. I say to the Government that that is not good enough. We should be working together collaboratively to regulate this sector appropriately. 
Last year we received a report from the office of the Registrar of Financial Service Providers and Financial Advisers and he made it very clear what the problem was. He said that there was a lack of capability and capacity. He talked about weak trustees; he talked about a lack of role clarity; he talked about the potential for a lack of independence from the issuer; and he talked about weak accountability. That is not good enough. It is an indictment on people whom ordinary investors were entitled to rely on but could not rely on. Making the supervisors subject to a tighter supervisory regime of their own does not fix the underlying problem. 
This bill had no regulatory impact statement published with it so I went away and printed it off and I think it is utterly inadequate. I think that is why the Government does not want to print its regulatory impact statements in the explanatory notes of bills tabled in the House any more. There are only three options in it: the 2007 proposals the central regulator and this one. The central regulator gets the benefit of three paragraphs. Australia has a central regulator. I want to ask the Government to seriously think about that. Let us look at Australia and let us look at the Financial Services Authority in the UK which sets 11 “Principles for Business”. I know that I will run out of time to list all of the principles for business but essentially a firm must conduct its business with integrity; a firm must conduct its business with due skill care and diligence; and a firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively with adequate risk-management systems. Yes there are rules that sit underneath the 11 principles and that is what this Parliament needs to give the people of New Zealand. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill 2010. I rise to support the Minister of Commerce for introducing this legislation to the House. It is important legislation as the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel alluded to. It is important legislation because the changes in it are part of the Government’s comprehensive reform agenda in the financial arena. It is part of its comprehensive reform agenda which looks at the work of financial advisers at moratoria regulation and at auditors. It is the Government’s action plan responding directly to the Capital Market Development Taskforce report. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: As I stated before the break I support the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. It requires corporate trustees and statutory supervisors that supervise certain financial investments to be licensed. It allows the Securities Commission to oversee how trustees and statutory supervisors act in situations where investors’ interests may be at risk. This is particularly pertinent given the number of financial company collapses we have seen in the last few years. 
What does the bill do? Primarily it does three things. First it will require trustees and statutory supervisors to be capable; secondly it will require them to perform their functions effectively; and thirdly and last but not least it enables the Securities Commission as the regulatory body to hold them accountable for any failure to act according to the expected standards. 
The new regime applies to trustees of debt securities unit trustees and statutory supervisors of certain collective investment schemes and retirement villages. The reason retirement villages are included in this regime is the recognition that they play a similar role to the trustees of other investment products in monitoring the financial position of retirement villages. The new licensing regime will help to ensure that trustees and statutory supervisors are competent and the regime will fundamentally improve trustees’ performance. The Securities Commission of course will administer the new regime and grant licences to applicants and it will also receive mandatory reports from these licensed trustees and statutory supervisors. 
The commission under this new Act will have more powers to require information from trustees and to direct them to act in special or emergency situations. The commission will be able to seek pecuniary penalties and compensation orders where the trustees and statutory supervisors have breached their obligations under this statute. The bill also creates an offence of failing to comply with the commission’s directions so that there is some enforcement power when trustees fail to act. This includes maximum pecuniary penalties of between $100000 and $200000. It is an offence for a person to act as a trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee without an appropriate licence and for a person to represent that he or she holds a licence that covers a security without holding such a licence. The penalties for such an offence will be a pecuniary amount not exceeding $300000. 
The bill sets out what the Securities Commission has to take into account in deciding whether to issue or vary a licence under the regime. Firstly some of the factors include—and the Minister has already raised some of these—the experience skills and qualifications of the applicant. In particular the commission will be looking at the skills of the directors and senior managers of a trustee organisation. Secondly it will take into account the financial resources available to the applicant as well as other resources which may be non-financial that are available to that applicant. That is particularly important in order to see the type of credibility the type of support and the type of resources that will support the trustee organisation during its operation. 
The commission’s new power to oversee how trustees and statutory supervisors act in certain situations is one of the fundamental changes in this bill. The fact that the bill gives the commission the power to monitor the actions of trustees should provide an added level of protection for investors. This is one of the fundamental changes. It is particularly important because it should allow the commission to direct trustees or directly intervene if trustees are not taking adequate steps or urgent action as is required. Those are the basic tenets of the bill. I support the bill and look forward to the select committee where we will be discussing its particular provisions. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill. As has been said previously on Labour’s behalf we support this bill as far as it goes. It makes some minor improvements to the current regime but we are critical of the lack of direction overall in fixing a more serious problem. 
I think we should reflect on what went wrong and on some of the problems that were not picked up by the system prior to the international financial crisis which affected New Zealand as well as most other Western countries and has had knock-on effects elsewhere in the world. An economist Hyman Minsky who died about 10 years ago in the United States said that the principles of financial regulation around the world were fundamentally wrong. He said they were based on a premise that financial institutions are inherently self-correcting and stable and that if one of them makes a mistake it gets cleaned out someone else in the system picks up its share of the market and everything self-corrects. He pointed out that that was a fallacy in respect of financial institutions as we have seen in recent years. Some financial institutions are so large—and collectively the importance of financial institutions is so fundamental to the operating of a modern economy—that if the financial sector seizes up or stops functioning properly then trade can cease and the effects on businesses and the people they employ can be very dire indeed. 
Hyman Minsky’s theory was that the longer the period of economic prosperity the more risk taking we see on the part of financial intermediaries. The longer the banks the finance companies and the trustee companies have a period of financial stability the more they are inclined to embark upon risky behaviour because they have forgotten about the last time they were cleaned out and they seem to be making hay by making more and more risky investments in the meantime. 
He said a couple of things as a consequence of that theory. He said economies need lots of financial institutions rather than dependence on a few. That is a very pressing problem in New Zealand given our disproportionate reliance on five large banks compared with most economies and the disappearance of many parts of our secondary finance sector in the form of finance companies and some unit trusts. Minsky said that firstly we need to take care in an economy to have a large number of financial institutions rather than too much reliance on the few because if the few then stop operating we create risks. He then went further and said that whatever the number of financial institutions the financial regulator has to keep ahead of them. The longer the period of financial stability the more risky their behaviour is and the more often they move to make money in balance sheet transactions in a way that is not caught by the regulator. 
The theories of Hyman Minsky have attracted a resurgence of interest amongst reputable economists and regulators around the world following the financial crisis because of course his predictions have proven to be true. We had a long period of prosperity in the world. We had what some people have called irrational exuberance in property markets. Banks and merchant banks were seemingly making ever larger amounts of money. We now know that the reality is that they actually did so through transactions that were imprudent to say the least. In respect of some of them they were close to dishonest and still others were seen to be completely dishonest once they were unpicked. 
In respect of the New Zealand situation finance companies generally operate under prospectuses that are issued under the Securities Act. It is a requirement of the Securities Act that the prospectus name a supervisor of the investment which is generally a trustee company. Those trustee companies have a supervisory role. They are meant to ensure compliance by the finance company the unit trust or the group investment fund with the terms of the trust deed and to generally oversee matters on behalf of the investors. They are paid a fee for that role which is how they make their money. It is pretty clear that there has been some failure in that system. I would say that there has also been a wider failure which is the wider failure on the part of the regulators to keep ahead of poor practice amongst financial intermediaries whether those financial intermediaries are banks finance companies unit trusts or group investment funds. Over the last few years we have seen poor practice by all of those groups. 
The New Zealand banks would say—and it is true—that in the global context they are quite strong backed as they are by their strong Australian parents. None the less the banks were partly responsible for the problem because they lent on ever higher security margins and fed the consumption boom as much as—in fact more than—any other part of the financial sector. The banks fed more money into the beast. That in turn pushed the finance companies into riskier lending propositions because their part of the market was being gobbled up by the banks which had themselves moved into a riskier part of the market. So the finance companies and some of the unit trusts moved into riskier investments than they had previously been making. 
All of those things I think point to some form of regulatory failure in the system. It is not all the fault of the banks the unit trusts the group investment funds and the finance companies although obviously if they are making the investment decisions they must bear first and most of the responsibility for the things that went wrong. But the regulators should have been ahead of them. The regulators should have been listening to the likes of Hyman Minsky and other people of his ilk who were warning of the tendencies that had been apparent for some time. The regulators are very good at coming along later and saying that someone was wrong but with due respect to the regulators I think that they did not perform adequately in terms of seeing some of those problems earlier. 
In the finance company area I personally am critical of some of the trustee companies and some of the other regulators including some of the regulators that advise the Government in terms of their failure to crack down on related party transactions. I think that the greatest shame of these finance companies was where they were lending to their own directors to family members of those directors or to family trusts that were related to the directors. Plenty of instances are now coming to light where there was lending to related parties. Appropriate securities have not been taken. Personal covenants have not been taken from trustees even though the lending has enriched the assets of those trusts. There have been plenty of other instances where the funds that were invested in finance companies by ordinary New Zealand investors have ended up in the pockets of directors or related parties of those directors without much apparent recourse under the securities that ought to have been taken at the time. There has been failure by trustee companies. 
One area where the Labour Party is critical of this bill is that although it goes some way to impose some greater duties it does not move to the model that is applied in both the United Kingdom and Australia where they have a central regulator that has more powers than the New Zealand Securities Commission. They effectively take some of those roles that have sat with trustee companies rather ineffectually at times and say that those roles should pass to a central regulator. That is similar to what was recommended by the Capital Market Development Taskforce which reported to the Government not long ago. Although this bill is not offensive it does not make the big change that is necessary which is to create a beefed-up regulator that could more properly make sure that the sorts of bad events that have occurred in the past are less likely to happen in the future. They can never be eliminated completely because we cannot remove investment risk. But we could do better on this issue than we have done in New Zealand in recent years and this bill does not seem to fix the fundamental problem. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to take probably a short call on the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill on behalf of my colleague David Clendon who I know is looking forward to speaking on this matter. The Green Party has taken quite an assertive stance in this House on the issues that have arisen relating to the serial collapse of many of our financial institutions during the course of the recession and on some of the practices that came to light and weaknesses that came to light as a result of scrutiny of those occurrences. I think it is probably fair to say that what I have to say tonight dovetails very well with what we have just heard from the Hon David Parker. 
The recession saw financial institutions collapsing like dominoes through New Zealand starving good businesses of capital and for many investors wreaking havoc with their savings including the life savings of many New Zealanders. It is conservatively estimated that several billion dollars of wealth was simply wiped from the collective balance sheets of New Zealanders. The problem is that in the good times the mark-to-market process serves to imbue the balance sheets of all with a rosy glow. That results in less scrutiny greater risk-taking—as the Hon David Parker has just been discussing—and effectively the creation of wealth out of nothing. That then sets up positive feedback loops that seem to inflate the apparent value of those assets still further which then creates greater risk-taking and the whole thing spirals out of control until it does not any more—it collapses. I am constantly reminded of the treatment of Iceland by the International Monetary Fund which less than a year before the total collapse of Iceland’s economy was lauding Iceland as one of the greatest success stories in the world economy. 
Since everything has gone south there has been much greater scrutiny of these investment vehicles and of the things that went wrong. Some of the things that went wrong have already been discussed in the House but here is my little list. One of the things we discovered was that many of the schemes being operated were no more than Ponzi schemes. We discovered many many shonky practices such as when a debt was going bad and was not being repaid. Rather than having that bad debt appearing on the balance sheet it was simply being rolled into a new debt which made the balance sheet look better. We also saw the practice of companies with bad debts which would otherwise have appeared on their books immediately prior to balance date selling off those debts to other entities many of which were related parties. I agree with David Parker’s assessment that that was certainly one of the most shameful practices we saw from these companies. Only 2 days after the balance date those same assets were sold back to the original entity. There were many other practices such as those. 
We saw a whole series of practices that made the inquiry into financial institutions something the Green Party wholeheartedly supported. We saw a cynical use of moratoria which may be something that my colleague John Boscawen wants to talk about in his contribution because it is one of the things that he has very valiantly and admirably in my view pursued in this House and in the select committee. We saw what I would call “active deceit” inappropriate disclosure and inappropriate marketing. I have reminded the House previously of the report of the Morningstar Group which found that New Zealand ranked absolute bottom of all the countries it assessed for investor friendliness. The reason we were ranked bottom was our inappropriate and inadequate disclosure and regulatory regimes. Most important in relation to this bill we saw inadequate scrutiny by those trusted with that task. I use that word “trust” because the business of trustee companies and official trustees is not simply a role; it is a duty that has a fundamental contract with investors. Investors have a right to trust that trustees will actually look after their interests. In many cases they did not. I lost count of the number of financial companies that collapsed through that time. I think I lost count when it hit about 50. Again John Boscawen may have an up-to-date number. 
We then come to what progress the Government has made in dealing with all the inadequacies that became manifest. There are Leonard Cohen lyrics that go: 
Sail on sail on  
O mighty Ship of State! 
which refers to the terrible momentum of the State. We saw a little bit of that when measures that were proposed before the recession still came into this House. The Green Party was highly critical of the Securities (Disclosure) Amendment Bill and the Financial Advisers Amendment Bill because in the face of this absolutely apparent inadequacy of the disclosure regime the Government moved to relax the disclosure requirements and we opposed that. But since that time the Government has unveiled an agenda of measures to deal with some of the inadequacies of the disclosure and regulatory regimes. The Green Party has been pleased to support those measures. We have been pleased to support for example the inquiry into the collapse of finance companies. I know the issue of Lianne Dalziel’s member’s bill has come up in the House tonight and I pledge the support of our party to that member’s bill. It will short-circuit the attempts to rob investors in the ANZ and ING frozen funds of their legitimate and moral legal remedies. That is disgraceful behaviour on the part of those companies and I applaud Lianne Dalziel’s attempts to block off the sneaky escape route that they intend to pursue. 
In relation to this bill we will be voting for it at the first reading. We note the concerns Labour has raised about it and to those concerns I add our caution that we wish to check with some of the smaller institutions like credit unions and similar institutions that this bill will not have unintended consequences for those institutions that in general do a fantastic job for New Zealanders. But with that proviso we look forward to the scrutiny of the bill at the select committee and we look forward to the greater protection for New Zealand investors that they so richly deserve. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill 
.  
ACT will be supporting this bill. Like many in this House ACT is very concerned about the massive losses that have been caused through the collapse of about 40 finance companies. About $4 million to $5 million is currently either lost or tied up in moratoriums. Those losses have had a huge impact on the lives of many New Zealanders. 
I want to make some brief comments on the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s contribution this evening. But before I do I would like to congratulate her on the launch of her member’s bill last Friday which Kevin Hague just referred to. I had the pleasure of attending with Lianne a meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Frozen Funds Group where her bill was launched—I understand with the full support of the Maori Party and Green Party. I was able to tell the assembled group that I would certainly be supporting the bill at its first reading. If two of my remaining four colleagues also did that the bill would at least reach the Commerce Committee. 
Lianne Dalziel expressed her opposition to the proposed report-back date of 30 June. Like Lianne Dalziel I was surprised and in fact shocked to find out that on a bill as important and complex as this one the select committee would be required to hear submissions debate the bill and report back to the House in just over 3 months. I am pleased to say that I understand that the Government is now prepared to allow the committee a full 6-month period on this bill. 
I was also interested in Lianne Dalziel’s comments about the beefing up of the Securities Commission and the greater role played in Australia by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the Australian regulator. I thought it particularly ironic that Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that legislation was introduced into the House only 3 days before Bridgecorp collapsed. The irony of that is that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission prohibited Bridgecorp from raising money in Australia. If our own Securities Commission which at that time was under Lianne Dalziel’s stewardship—it was her responsibility as Minister of Commerce—had shown as much interest and as much teeth as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission did it is quite likely that the large sums of money lost in Bridgecorp would not have been lost or certainly the losses would not have been as significant as they were. 
This bill establishes a licensing regime for trustees and statutory managers. The role of a trustee is to monitor the issuers of securities. Of course issuers of securities are finance companies. Finance companies raise money from the public issue bonds and take security over the properties or assets of the people to whom they lend money. So the role of the trustee is to monitor the activities of a finance company and to ensure that that finance company reports accurately to its bondholders to the people who have leant money to that finance company so that that company can in turn lend money to the people who would like to borrow from it. 
Most New Zealanders would understand the concept of a first mortgage a second mortgage or a third mortgage. Typically when we look to buy our first home or any home we go to a bank for a first mortgage—to lend us some money to help us purchase the home. When we come to sell that home the first mortgagee—the bank—is the first party that has to be paid off. Sometimes a first mortgage is not sufficient to enable the purchase of a house and some people need a second mortgage. In that instance if the house is sold the first party to get the proceeds from the sale is the first mortgagee followed by the second mortgagee. In some rare cases a person may even go as far as borrowing a third mortgage and therefore will owe three people money. 
I would like to bring to the House’s attention one particular finance company that raised money on second mortgages. At least some of those second mortgages were structured so that they were in two parts. If you like they had a top part and a bottom part. Although it was called a second mortgage the terms of that second mortgage were such that when the asset was sold and the funds were paid back the people who lent on the top part of that second mortgage were paid in full before the people who lent money on the bottom half of the second mortgage. The effect of that transaction was that the people who were secured through the bottom half of the second mortgage were effectively lending money on a third mortgage. 
Let me give members an example. Imagine someone borrowing $100 million. That person borrows $30 million on the first mortgage and borrows $70 million on the second mortgage. Ordinarily if it was a standard second mortgage when it came time to sell that asset the first mortgagee would be paid off in full and would get the full $30 million and the second mortgagee would get the next $70 million. However if there was a shortfall if the company could raise only $35 million the $35 million would be spread equally at 50c in the dollar to all the people who had lent part of that second mortgage. Imagine if instead of it being a standard second mortgage it was arranged in such a way that it was in two parts: the top part had priority for $30 million and the bottom part had priority for $40 million. So when it came to sell that asset—let us say it sold for $65 million—the first mortgagee would get $30 million the people who had the top half of the second mortgage would get paid in full—the next $30 million—and the people who remained at the bottom would get the last $5 million. Even though they were owed $40 million they would get $5 million. That may seem a rather academic example but the tragedy is that that is substantially what happened in the case of a loan from Strategic Finance to the Hilton Denarau project. 
I tabled a letter in the House last week in which I acknowledged to the Minister of Justice that I knew Mr Neville Mahon—I had known him for many years—who had borrowed money under those terms. But the tragedy of this situation the thing that concerns me is that when Strategic Finance—a company that went into receivership just 10 days ago—prepared its 2008 accounts rather than showing mortgages that were in substance first second and third mortgages it showed only first mortgages and second mortgages. A year later when Strategic Finance did its accounts to 30 June they now showed for the first time what the company called a second mortgage with a subordinate position. It defined that as a second mortgage where the company participates with other lenders and investors but the company’s position is subordinated. So Strategic Finance lent money on a second mortgage it got part of that money from people who were outside the normal bondholders of Strategic Finance and those people took precedence. 
In my view the accounts that were presented by Strategic Finance for 30 June 2008 were misleading at the time. I believe that the people who voted on the moratorium may well have been misled. That situation was not corrected until the 30 June 2009 accounts were prepared and Strategic Finance went back and told people the true facts retrospectively—15 months after the end of that financial year and after the vote on the moratorium. I wrote to the Minister of Justice Mr Simon Power on 14 December—although the letter was dated 14 December in error—and asked Mr Power to appoint a statutory manager. I asked the Government to take control of this company. I asked the company to make its transactions transparent. I was concerned about conflicts of interest. I received a letter from Mr Power on 21 January. He said that he had referred the case to the Securities Commission. I have confirmed with Mr Power this evening that we are yet to hear from the Securities Commission. 
It is all very well to extend powers to the Securities Commission but not if those powers are not enforced. What is the role of the Securities Commission if it is not to tell the investors of Strategic Finance that their $68 million in mortgages which the company has characterised as second mortgages are in substance third-ranking securities? They may well be second mortgages in style but the truth is that in the case of Mr Mahon he and his fellow bondholders will not get their money until the first mortgagee is paid $30 million and the top half of the second mortgage is paid approximately $30 million. They get the rest. I think that is a disgrace and I think it is time for the Securities Commission to act. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau katoa e hui nei i roto i to tatau Whare te Whare Paremata o te motu i tenei po. Ko taku i te tuatahi ko te whaiwhai haere i nga korero me ki o te kaiarahi-tahi o te Pati Maori i te rangi nei kei a ia e poroporoaki ana i a Kahurangi Raiha Mahuta. I a tatau e korero ana mo tenei mea mo te kaitiaki ko ia tera te tauira o te kaitiaki. Na ko tana mahi ko te tiaki i te putea me ki ko te arahi i te iwi o Tainui ka mutu ko ia tera i eke ki tera o nga momo taumata. No reira hei whaiwhai haere i te korero a te Honore Tariana Turia he tuku poroporoaki ki a ia. Ko ia tera e takoto mai ra i runga i tera o nga marae o roto o Tainui waka ki Waahi a ka mutu a ko ake nei ka heria atu ai ki tona ukaipo i roto o Te Tai Tokerau. No reira e kui takoto mai. Takoto mai i runga i nga ringaringa o te wahi ngaro. Me te mohio ano hoki a ko ake nei ka tae atu koe ki to hoa rangatira ki a Te Kotahi. Koutou ki a koutou e te hunga ora tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatau katoa. 
Ehara i te mea ko au te tohunga mo tenei mea mo te putea. Heoi ano ko au tetahi e mohio ana ki taku e kite nei ki taku e rongo nei. I roto i te komiti whaiti o te Commerce i te tau kua hipa i nga marama tata kua hipa ake ko taku i kite nei ko te karu i kite nei ko te mamae o te hunga ka tae ake ki roto i tera komiti ki reira whakatakoto mai ai i te mamae o te ngakau mo nga mahi nanakia a etahi ara ko te hunga kei roto me ki e pangia ana e tenei o nga pire. I kite au i te hunga kuia koroua pakeke i tae ake ki te komiti me ta ratau riri pouri tangi mo nga mahi nanakia a etahi. Koinei taku e mohio nei taku e kite nei ki mua i a au. Ka mutu tera korero tera. 
Ka hoki ano ra ki tetahi kuia i roto i a au o roto o Te Waiariki. Ko tona ingoa ko Iria Whiu. Ko ia tera kei roto i tetahi ropu. Ko te ingoa o te ropu nei ko Exposing Unacceptable Financial Activities. Koinei te ingoa o te ropu. I puta tenei ropu i muri mai i te hinganga o Blue Chip i tera tau. Ka mutu ko ta ratau ko te kimikimi haere i te hunga i rongo nei i te ngau o enei ropu nanakia ka mutu ko nga mea rawekeweke i te putea. I penei rawa te korero i roto i te ao Pakeha he financial advisors. Ko te aronganui o tenei ropu he whaiwhai haere i te hunga e mahi nanakia ki etahi kia rongo ratau i te mamae na runga i nga mahi nanakia e korerohia ake nei. Na ko ta ratau ko te kimi haere i taua hunga ra i te mea te ahua nei kua whakakao mai ratau ki roto i tetahi ropu na runga i te mea karekau tetahi i tua atu ki te awhina i a ratau. Me noho pokohiwi ki te pokohiwi kia taea e ratau te korero i nga take e pa atu ki a ratau ka mutu ki te kimi awhina mena e taea ana. No reira a kati ko ta ratau kaupapa e hangai tonu ana ki tenei momo hunga me te Kawanatanga ara mo to ratau ngoikore ki te tiaki i nga kaihoko te whakatikatika i te hunga kaitohutohu. 
Ko taku i tenei wa ko te whakanui i tera ropu me ta ratau ngakaunui ki tera hunga. He hunga i kaha nei ki te awhina i te hunga e rongo nei i te mamae engari ko te mea nui ko te mea arohanui nei. E kore ratau e kite i te putea i whakapauhia e etahi atu. Ahakoa pehea e kore tera putea e hoki mai ki a ratau. Ko taku ko te whakanui i a ratau mahi na ratau tonu nga take nei o etahi o Aotearoa i whakairi ki te motu ko nga mahi taurekareka nei a etahi o te hunga kaitohutohu. Te ahua nei kua whai take ta ratau akiaki i te take nei i te mea ki te tiaki i nga rawa o te hunga hoko kia whakanui i te whakapono o te tangata ki nga makete a-putea nei. 
Ko te aronga o tenei pire he whakarite i etahi tikanga a-noho mo te hunga e hiahia ana kia tu hei kaitiaki hei kaitohutohu ranei kia noho matatau. Ko ta ratau ko te ki atu me noho matatau tenei hunga kia matatau ki te whakahaere i nga mea kia eke ki te taumata ka mutu ko te kimi i te hunga matatau. Mena kaore ratau i te matatau panaia atu. Koinei te tikanga o tenei o nga pire. Mena kaore ratau e eke ki te taumata tukuna kia haere i te mea ko te tino aronga kia whai matauranga kia whai maramatanga kia whai mohiotanga te hunga ka noho nei hei kaitiaki. Ko tenei pire he mea whaiwhai haere i nga ture kua tautokongia e te Pati Maori i nga tau kua hipa. Ahua orite ana tona aronga ara kia whakapiki ake kia whakakake ake i nga taumata kia whakakaha ake i nga pukenga nga pumanawa e taea ai me ki te motu te ki atu e whakapono ana au ki nga tangata ka noho nei hei kaitohutohu ka mutu hei kaitiaki i roto i nga mahi makete a-putea ake nei. 
Kaore e kore ka puta mai etahi atu take mena ka eke tenei pire ki te komiti whaiti. Koinei te mea pai o te haerenga ki te komiti whaiti ka tae mai a tini a mano ki te korero i a ratau take ki roto i tera momo komiti. Ko te aronganui o te Pati Maori ko te titiro ki nga panga o tenei pire ki nga kaitiaki Maori otira ki a Ngai Maori whanui tonu. I puta tetahi korero i te Minita i mua tonu nei i te ra nei mo nga tikanga arotake. Ko ta matau ko te ki atu pehea te ahuatanga o tenei pire ki runga i te ahuatanga o nga kaitiaki o naianei Maori mai Maori mai. He mea pai ki a matau te titiro hohonu nei te ako nei mena ae ranei ka whai tikanga tenei mea e ki ana i te reo Pakeha ko nga competency issues 
i roto i te pire nei. Ko te tikanga o tenei pire e hangai tonu ana ki tera ahuatanga. Ae ranei e taea ana e te tangata te mahi tana mahi kaore ranei. No reira he mea nui tera. 
Ko tetahi mea o roto i nga kaitiaki Maori ko te nuinga ka ki atu he iwi tupato te iwi Maori. He iwi whakakeke he iwi ahua mataku ki te puta i te taiapa he iwi noho taiapa mena ka korero whenua nga tangata nei. No reira ko ta matau ko te ki atu tera pea e tika ana kia whakaara ake enei take ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti whaiti i te mea ko te mea nui o roto i tenei pire he ata titiro ki te hohonutanga o nga mea nei. 
Engari na runga i te mea ko te iwi Maori he kore hiahia ki te whakapau moni ki te whiu moni mo te kore take noa iho ka mutu ko ta matau ki me titiro ki te ahuatanga o nga kaitiaki Maori. No reira a kati ko ta matau ko te ki atu ko tetahi mea i wareware i a au i te mea ko te nuinga o nga kaitiaki Maori nei he iwi mahi mo te kore moni tera pea he uaua rawa ki te whakatinana i tenei ture. Heoi ano na te ahuatanga o nga korero ka puta tera pea ka kitea mai ai mena he pera ano he raru nui ka puta i reira. No reira kati ake kua rahi tenei. 
Ko taku ko te whakakopani i taku korero me te ki atu ae ka tautoko te Pati Maori i tenei panui tuatahi ki te komiti whaiti kia taea ai e te Maori a-whanau a-hapu a-iwi te ata rongo i nga korero ka mutu te whakatakoto korero ki mua i te aroaro o te komiti whaiti. Kia ora. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us all assembled here in our House tonight. Firstly I want to follow on from the tributes made by the co-leader of the Maori Party today in respect of the death of Lady Raiha Mahuta. As we talk about trustees matriarch Rai is an example of one. Her job was to take care of the finances and to lead the people of Tainui. In doing that she met those kinds of standards expected of a trustee. Therefore to follow up the tribute by the Hon Tariana Turia I bid farewell to Lady Raiha Mahuta who lies in state at Waahi one of Tainui’s marae and will shortly be taken to her land of birth in the far north. Lie there beloved matriarch. Rest there in the arms of the haven of no end in the knowledge that you will soon reach your beloved husband Te Kotahi. You who have departed remain there with each other and we the living remain here with each other; greetings greetings and greetings to us all.  
I am not an expert in matters relating to finance but I do know what I see and hear. In the Commerce Committee last year just a few months ago I witnessed with my own eyes the hurt in those who came before that committee to express their pain because of the nefarious actions of some that this bill intends to deal with. I saw at first hand the fury disappointment and grief of the elderly womenfolk and menfolk who came to the select committee as they spoke out against the irresponsible action by some people. That is what I know about; that is what took place before me. That is that example.  
I cast my mind back to another situation relating to an elderly lady within my electorate of Te Waiariki Her name is Iria Whiu. She is a member of an organisation called Exposing Unacceptable Financial Activities. Yes that is what it was called. It was formed after Blue Chip collapsed last year. It seeks out those who have become victims of financial abuse particularly by so-called financial advisers. Primarily it seeks out those who have become victims of such nefarious actions as were referred to earlier and have suffered as a consequence. It seems they come together as a collective because there is nothing out there to offer help. They have to work closely with each other shoulder to shoulder so that they can speak out on matters of concern that relate to them and seek out assistance where possible as well. Suffice to say their philosophy relates directly to such an entity as the Government being inadequate at providing customer protection and making so-called advisers accountable for their actions.  
At this time I want to acknowledge that group and the commitment of individuals who have continued to bring these issues to our attention despite their own situations. These are people who had little hope of ever retrieving their funds. So I recognise their work as well as the sacrifice of so many whose livelihoods have been threatened by shonky advice and disreputable advisers. It seems they have succeeded in their mission to protect the interests of investors and enhance investor confidence in financial markets.  
This bill will require people who want to be a trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee to be competent and effective in their function and to be held accountable for failing to perform their functions effectively. This bill fits into a suite of legislation to which the Maori Party has previously given its support. Other legislation that we have supported has sought to improve standards competency and confidence in those with advisory and supervisory roles in financial markets.  
Other issues are likely to arise if this bill reaches the select committee stage. The advantage of attending select committee hearings is that the public can come and speak on issues pertaining to them. In particular we are interested in understanding how the bill will affect Maori trusts and Maori in general. The Minister talked earlier today about stringent monitoring requirements. Our interest is in knowing how this will impact on the continuing ability of Maori trustees today to carry out their role. We are also interested to learn more about the competency issues or the lack of sound knowledge in trust management that it appears this bill has emerged in response to. What is most important is whether a person can fulfil the role.  
It is often said that Maori are risk-averse. Most Maori are often conservative when it concerns land. Perhaps it is appropriate that these issues emerge before the select committee because it is important that the issues are examined closely. We urge that aspects of Maori trustees be looked into so that they do not spend money needlessly.  
One thing I forgot to say is that most Maori trustees work for nothing. Perhaps because of this it will prove difficult to implement this bill. Due to the nature of previous comments if that continues to be the case problems will arise. 
In conclusion the Maori Party supports this bill’s first reading and referral to select committee so that families subtribes and tribes in Maoridom can listen to the talk around it and make submissions to the select committee. Thank you 
.] 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Commerce the Hon Simon Power. As all sides of the House agree this is an important bill and I am glad that the Opposition supports it. 
I start by making the observation that I find it quite ironic that the chairperson of the Commerce Committee the Opposition member the Hon Lianne Dalziel complained about the time it has taken for this bill to come to the House. I find it ironic in the sense that the previous Labour Government had been in power for 9 years when the finance company failures happened and I believe it was she who was the Minister of Commerce at the time. 
This bill is about accountability. It requires corporate trustees and certain statutory supervisors to be licensed thereby improving the quality of corporate trustees’ supervision. The Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill is intended to protect investors’ interests and enhance market confidence by enabling the Securities Commission to hold trustees and statutory supervisors accountable for failing to perform effectively. It will be an offence to act as a trustee or statutory supervisor without a licence. If I can use the words of my colleague John Boscawen it is about beefing up the Securities Commission. 
We need to build the trust in capital markets of mum and dad investors as it has been severely dented by finance company failures and the global recession. This bill is an important part of achieving that. This bill is about making sure that people are competent for the job they are doing and are improving their performance and it enables the Securities Commission to hold them accountable for any failure to act according to the expected standards. This new licensing regime will apply to trustees of debt securities unit trustees and statutory supervisors of certain collective investment schemes and retirement villages. The Securities Commission will administer the new regime granting licensing applications and receiving mandatory reports from licensed trustees and statutory supervisors. The commission will have more power to require information from trustees and to direct them to act in emergency situations. Retirement village statutory supervisors have been included as recognition of the similar role they play to trustees of investment products in monitoring the financial position of retirement villages. 
The bill improves the accountability of trustees and statutory supervisors and the commission will be able to seek pecuniary penalties and compensation orders on behalf of investors against trustees and statutory supervisors who have breached their obligations. This bill also makes it an offence for failing to comply with the commission’s directions which include providing information about the trustee statutory supervisor or issuer. Maximum penalties will range from $100000 to $200000. It will be an offence for a person to act as a trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee without an appropriate licence and he or she is liable to pay a fine of up to $300000. 
The bill makes detailed provisions for licence holders to report at regular intervals to the commission—that is between 6 and 12 months from when the licence is issued and once every 6 months thereafter. This monitoring system will be put in place to protect the interests of investors and make sure they have confidence in our financial markets. To me that is fantastic news especially given the financial climate that has been before us. 
These changes are part of the Government’s comprehensive reform agenda in the financial arena which also includes work around financial advisors moratoria regulation auditors and the Government’s action plan for responding to the report of the Capital Market Development Taskforce. Many in the Korean community lost a lot of money during the financial crisis and the finance company failures and I am sure they will feel a sense of relief that this National-led Government is doing something about it. This is a great bill and it is an important bill. I commend it to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill because it makes sense. Effectively this bill is about trying to make sure that the interests of investors are protected and that investors are made more confident in financial markets by ensuring that trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees are capable of performing their functions are performing those functions effectively and are accountable for any failure to perform them. So the bill is kind of simple really and it is to be applauded. Introduced at the end of 2009 this bill is a continuation of the great progress that Labour made in tidying up the financial services sector including the review of financial products and providers. As a member of the Commerce Committee I look forward to scrutinising this somewhat lengthy and technical bill in the select committee deliberation. But I want to put on record that the bill is important. It is certainly not all that is required but I give a tick to the Government for introducing it. 
It is hugely important to build investor confidence in this country after a series of financial failures the collapse of a number of finance companies and the effects on the number of people who lost their hard-earned investments. This bill follows on from the conclusions of both an IMF and World Bank report in 2004 and the consultations undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development in the review of financial products and providers in 2006 which found that New Zealand placed too much reliance on private supervisors such as corporate trustees and that those supervisors and trustees often lacked accountability. So this bill removes the automatic right for the six statutorily appointed approved trustees to supervise issuers of debt and some investment schemes and it introduces a licensing regime for trustees that will be run by the Securities Commission. 
The bill makes it an offence to act as a trustee or statutory supervisor without a licence so that a person who commits such an offence will be liable on summary conviction to a fine that does not exceed $300000. A trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee must hold a licence that covers the debt security participatory security or unit trust to which the appointment relates and a licence holder must comply with every condition imposed on the licence. Licences will ensure that the trustee statutory supervisor or unit trustee is a body corporate and that their directors and senior managers must be of good character. This bill contains a number of provisions designed to ensure that trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees comply with their obligations and the Securities Commission may seek pecuniary penalty and compensatory orders against those who fail to comply. 
These clauses are designed to address the lack of capability and accountability of supervisors and trustees in the current system as I have already said and the fundamental role of trustees statutory supervisors or unit trustees is to ensure compliance with the terms of the trust deed or the offer of security. So when an issuer gets into difficulties the trustee supervisor is supposed to take action inform the investors and engage expert assistance or place the issuer into liquidation. 
The finance company failures of 2006 to 2008 raised some important issues: firstly the lack of capability or capacity and the fact that trustees and supervisors have not been equipped to deal with the size and complexity of the securities they supervised. There have been the issues of weak trustees of the role of trustees and supervisors not being defined properly and of the potential for their lack of independence from the issuer—trustees and supervisors are funded by the entities they supervise. There has also been weak accountability: individual investors can take court action but that is the only form of accountability. Concerns have been raised in respect of similar issues relating to the performance of some statutory advisers of retirement villages as well. 
To give some context to the situation that has resulted in this legislation I will read extracts from a couple of articles that appeared in late 2008. The first is from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. It is entitled “Business reality behind smooth assurances” and it is written by Greg Ninness: “Trustee companies are fond of emphasising the trust part of their name more than the company part and this is reflected in the way they promote themselves. Words such as ‘integrity’ and ‘experience’ often feature prominently in their promotional material and they frequently promote themselves as a bulwark which can shelter a family from financial turmoil. But look beneath the veneer of prudently old-fashioned values and you will find a modern commercially-oriented business. … A core part of the activities of most trustee companies is managing family trusts usually for many years after the person who established it has died. Often this will involve investing the trust’s money to provide an income for its beneficiaries. Trustee companies could invest this money directly in property or shares or any number of the managed funds which are available to the general public and sometimes they do. But many trustee companies have also formed their own managed funds into which they can channel money they are investing on their clients’ behalf. Where this happens the trustee company gets fees and its funds management arm generates also levies fees. The third leg of most trustee companies’ business is acting as a corporate trustee. The law requires certain types of investment vehicles such as finance company debentures unit trusts and organisations such as retirement villages to have a trustee or statutory supervisor to protect investors’ interests. Although the trustee’s powers are limited in such situations many people are questioning the value they provide to the investing public …”. 
A brief excerpt from another article also written in 2008 from the  
National Business Review  
in August written by Sarah McDonald and Fiona Robertson starts off by stating: “In 2004  
National Business Review  
published a double-page spread titled ‘A matter of trust’ detailing major concerns held by many in the finance industry abut the effectiveness of trustees at protecting retail investors. The carnage that has ensued since then with more than $5 billion either frozen or lost completely in failed finance company fund or mortgage trust investments has done nothing to assuage those anxieties. And the consensus amongst finance and investment industry professionals that  
National Business Review  
spoke to is that trustees are underpaid in some cases ineffectual and in others plain incompetent.” The point I make is that this bill goes a long way to addressing this situation but there is a lot more to be done. 
In closing I will mention the work that is currently being done by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel the previous Minister of Commerce. She has recently launched a member’s bill to better protect investors. The Illegal Contracts (Unlawful Limitations on Regulators’ Powers) Amendment Bill will ensure that investors will not miss out on the benefits coming from a regulator taking action against an investment company that has breached the rules. The issue was brought to her attention through the ING issues when people were forced to sign away their rights to gain any benefit from someone else taking action against ING including the regulator. Over half a billion dollars was stranded in the ING product funds with a lot of that sum representing the life savings of elderly people who continue to be angry and confused at the way they were treated. This bill makes a move to ensure that Kiwi investors get a fair deal worthy of the consideration of Parliament and I hope that members from all sides of the House will give it a fair hearing if it is drawn from the ballot. 
I think that members have heard tonight from my colleague the Hon David Parker that there is also more to be done in beefing up the Securities Commission to better regulate the space and in not just relying on trustees. He also said that the Capital Market Development Taskforce reported and recommended on that which mirrors similar things happening in the UK and Australia. 
As I said earlier Labour supports this bill. We do not think that it goes far enough in that there is a lot more to be done but we think that it is sensible will protect investors and will help to restore confidence in the financial sector. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill which as we have heard tonight is intended to protect investors’ interests and to enhance market confidence. At least 6 years ago we were warned by the International Monetary Fund and by the World Bank that there were some weaknesses in our system. As the previous speaker Clare Curran mentioned the Ministry of Economic Development repeated those warnings and identified weaknesses in our regime. Those weaknesses as set out in the explanatory note of the bill include: “a lack of capability or capacity: trustee statutory supervisor and unit trustee company resources and expertise have not always matched the size and complexity of the securities they supervise: —weak trust deeds: there are insufficient minimum protections for investors in some trust deeds: —a lack of role clarity: a lack of clear definition of trustees’ statutory supervisors’ and unit trustees’ role has resulted in inconsistencies” and the list goes on. 
We understand that we are coming through a time of recession and are still fighting our way back to strength in our economy and that as a nation we are short of investment in capital markets. A tremendous amount of investment in the past has gone into the property market which though it generates income for property owners does not build accumulating wealth that can go on to create jobs for the future. It does not build the real wealth that this nation needs. It is a debt-hungry sector that drives borrowing mostly from overseas. But one substantial disincentive for people to shift from a borrowing-based way of thinking to an investment-based way of thinking is a lack of confidence in a system that fails to ensure professional effective ethical and accountable oversight of that system. Earlier this year on 9 February the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament stated: “The Government will be focusing this year on ways to promote investment in capital markets while also strengthening protection for investors. We want New Zealanders from all walks of life to be able to invest their savings in productive businesses either directly or through funds with more confidence in the regulation of those capital markets and with the knowledge they need to make informed choices. That is important if New Zealanders are to diversify away from their heavy reliance on property investment.” 
The Prime Minister also spoke of an opportunity for New Zealand. Referring to the report from the Capital Market Development Taskforce he stated: “The Taskforce also concluded that there is an opportunity for New Zealand to become a hub for financial services in the Asia Pacific region specialising in providing high-value middle and back office functions for the funds management industry. The Government is keen to see if this or similar new industries could be developed here and we have asked officials to determine what steps we would need to take to make that a reality.” When we shore up our regulations and build a robust credible effective ethical and accountable sector this sector will not just protect New Zealanders and give them confidence to invest in those capital markets; it will be able to export itself. 
We can take this one step further and look at the possibility of becoming such a financial service hub in the Asia-Pacific region. When it comes to investment the most highly valued commodity is trust. A robust licensing regime will promote trust. Trust is based on the integrity of a system from the top down and from the bottom up. Tonight we have heard the word “guardianship”. It will require trust for New Zealanders to move from a borrowing-based thinking in terms of property to an investment-based thinking in terms of business and investment in infrastructure and the future of this country. In order to have trust a strong system of guardianship is required. This bill proposes that. 
I turn now to the provisions of this bill. The first thing the bill does is create accountability through a licensing process. The bill requires corporate trustees statutory supervisors and unit trustees to be licensed. It also requires the Securities Commission to oversee how trustees and statutory supervisors act in situations where investors’ interests may be at risk. Greater accountability will ensure that corporate trustees and statutory supervisors act in the best interests of investors. Licensing will require trustees and statutory supervisors to be capable—it sounds so basic does it not? It will require them to perform their functions effectively. It will also enable the Securities Commission to hold them accountable for any failure to act according to the expected standards. The new licensing regime will help ensure that trustees and statutory supervisors are competent. This regime will fundamentally improve trustees’ performance around this country. This bill will lift the bar. For those who are already performing to a very high level of proficiency and standards this bill will enhance their already professional manner. Those who are performing well below the bar will either lift their standards or be weeded out. This is how investor confidence will grow—by having a very high standard of capability and a very high standard of accountability where substantial penalties await those who contravene such standards. The Securities Commission will administer the new regime granting license applications and receiving mandatory reports from licensed trustees and statutory supervisors. The commission will have more powers to require information from trustees and to direct them to act in emergency situations. 
The future is as bright as we want to make it. This Government is focused on building an economy that will deliver to New Zealanders real wealth that will improve our access to medical care our access to high-quality and world-class education and access to social services that support every New Zealander. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 The Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill may sound very dry to many members of the general public. Helpfully I will record a short conversation I had with my senior partner on a similar subject years ago when I was practising law in Auckland. He asked me to explain particular issues either by showing graphs or by telling stories. A story by the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 newspaper of 28 November 2008 was right to the point: “Lending role questions for NZ Guardian Trust and Hanover Finance” was the headline. Guardian Trust provided mortgage funding that was part of a property development. Its main funder at that time was Bridgecorp. Guardian Trust then provided additional finance with a first mortgage which meant that it ranked ahead of Bridgecorp’s loan in the event of a default. When Bridgecorp went—to use the language of the newspaper—“belly-up” last year Hanover Finance stepped in and took over its mortgage on the development making it the second mortgage on the land secured by Guardian Trust’s mortgage. This put Guardian Trust in an unusual position because it also acted as corporate trustee for Hanover Finance and had a supervisory role over that company’s affairs. The story went on to say that Hanover Finance was forced to exercise a mortgagee sale and Guardian Trust was forced to follow suit. Both companies were in default on their obligations to investors—both suspended repayments to their investors. Hanover Finance then tried to put together a restructuring plan and the plan had to first be approved by Guardian Trust in its role as Hanover Finance’s corporate trustee. Guardian Trust insisted there was no conflict of interest in its roles as trustee and mortgagee citing Chinese walls within the company. That is to say that the firm had developed or implemented polices and procedures to safeguard insider information and to ensure that no improper trading occurred. 
There is no need for us to follow up the story which is nearly 2 years old but it is a story that explains well why the law is being changed. The regulatory impact statement states that Treasury supports the proposed legislation “except for the requirements for the trustees to report breaches in trust deeds … in real-time and for the Commission to have the power to direct trustees to take a particular course of action to remedy breaches”. It fears that the power to direct the trustees how to act will blur the clarity between trustees and the Securities Commission and it says it does not fit well with the proposal to give the regulator the ability to take legal action against trustees which would likely be exercised at the same time. The requirements for trustees to inform the regulator of breaches in real time could lead to significant compliance costs which are likely to be borne by firms seeking to raise capital. The other aspect—or the elephant in the room—that this bill ignores according to Chapman Tripp is the dynamic created by the changing nature of the trustee and issuer relationship. The trustee as front-line regulator is in the unusual and potentially unhealthy position of having to negotiate its regulatory mandate and its remuneration with the very party it is charged with regulating—namely the issuer. 
Another article I wish to quote is from the website www.depositrates.co.nz which was published on 4 March 2010: “Commerce Minister Simon Power included trustees in his review of the Securities Act after a report by Companies Registrar Neville Harris in March last year”—2009—“slammed finance companies for acting like ‘Ponzi schemes’ and raised concerns about trustee diligence and accountability.” Interestingly that article attracted a comment that was posted the following day: “From the past experiences we have all just very recently witnessed would you really support Trustee companies continuing with any power what so ever to oversee finance/investment companies. Where have these Trustee companies been when the investors have needed them the most?????? Whilst the Securities commission have appeared to be near useless I feel they are the lessor incompetent of the two. Get real take note how the Australian Securities Commission work they aren’t pen pushers with wet paper towels to beat you with!”. The name of the commentator is Craig; the family name is not available. 
This bill borrowing the words of Chapman Tripp again reflects both regulation and deregulation at the same time. On the one hand the trustees and supervisors will need to be licensed and to comply with ongoing requirements—namely the regulation—but on the other hand the preferred position that existing trustees enjoy will be removed opening the way for others to enter the market or deregulation. According to McDouall Stuart’s  
New Zealand Finance Companies Report 2008 
 New Zealand’s financial system is worth $431 billion of which registered banks are worth $345 billion non-bank financial institutions $22 billion savings institutions $4 billion and managed funds $60 billion. 
I am very pleased to rise to support this bill in its first reading because the bill purports to protect the interests of investors and to enhance investor confidence in the financial market through various measures. The law has to be changed because New Zealand places too much reliance on private supervisors and because as evidenced by these real-time stories they are not accountable enough. Other problems with our regime were raised by the string of finance company collapses including the lack of independence and capability of some trustees. The previous Labour Government made great progress in tidying up the financial services sector including the Review of Financial Products and Providers. I am very pleased to see that this bill which is a continuation of those efforts is now being progressed. 
This is a complex technical and very important bill. We will be keenly involved in scrutinising it at the Commerce Committee. However as madam chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel pointed out earlier in the House the time frame and the way the bill has been presented may hamper submission efforts from stakeholders professionals and the general public and the extent the bill is to be scrutinised. Thank you very much. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Most Thursday nights when we leave this Chamber and go back to our electorates we go back to the real world. We go back to the world that is inhabited by all our constituents in the Napiers the Kaikouras the Northcotes of this world out to where the real people live. They work damn hard in this country pay their taxes seek to put a roof over their heads and look to save money for their retirement so they can live a comfortable life supplemented by their savings through to their retirement. When we go back to our constituencies we get back to the real world. We get back there on a Friday or a Monday or in the weekends and we deal with the real issues. We deal with immigration issues or accident compensation issues or Work and Income problems or Child Youth and Family issues or local issues faced by people that are pertinent to each electorate. All of us will have empathy with them or be able to understand what is going on. 
I am a relatively new member to Parliament but when I think back over the 4 years of going back to my constituency in Napier and think about some of the issues that I have had to deal with in clinics I tell members that probably the more difficult meetings—and I have had a number of them in my electorate office and out in people’s homes—have been around the financial collapse of companies in this country and the loss of savings that hard-working Kiwis have experienced. I tell members of one occasion when I had eight people come into my office—four hard-working couples—mums and dads in their mid-to-late 50s who had worked their guts out all their lives to save for their family homes who had gone out and had their homes geared up and basically lost their entire equity in their family homes. They were looking down the barrel of another 6 years before what they had looked at as their retirement. They now had no money saved apart from what they would get from national superannuation. That is not good enough. It is not good enough that we have had a financial market in this country that has not got in behind people and provided the safeguards that hard-working Kiwis needed to support them in their investment decisions. 
I am proud to see the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill before the House. I am proud to see Simon Power and members of this House bringing this legislation forward. I accept that it is a small step in terms of turning our financial markets around from the Wild West into what can be seen as a sustainable investment market that people can understand and trust. It is what the member for New Plymouth Mr Jonathan Young spoke about—a market in which we can build trust. Let us accept that we will not build up trust quickly in those markets because of the situation that we have got to over the last couple of years but this bill is a step in the right direction. It will protect investors’ interests and enhance market confidence. If that is a step that we can take via this bill then that is a step in the right direction. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I move  
That the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill amends the Television New Zealand Act 2003 in line with the Government’s manifesto commitment to replace the current Television New Zealand charter with a less prescriptive list of functions and to leave Television New Zealand (TVNZ) free to function as a competitive multimedia company. The other principal purpose of the bill is to amend the principal Act to allow for the rescreening of TVNZ’s archived pre-1989 television programmes in a process of compensation payments being made to rights-holders when the archived programmes are rescreened. 
The Government’s election manifesto included a commitment to retain TVNZ in public ownership and to provide certainty to our public broadcasters. This bill affirms that policy commitment. For many years TVNZ has effectively operated as a commercial broadcaster. The exceptions are TVNZ’s digital channels TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 which will be directly funded by the Government until the end of this year. 
Under section 12(2) of the Act TVNZ’s principal objective is to give full effect to its charter while maintaining its commercial performance. This dual mandate to meet detailed charter expectations and fulfil commercial objectives has proved to be totally unworkable. The introduction of the charter in 2003 and of the funding to support charter programming did not result in appreciable points of difference between the prime-time schedules of TVNZ and other broadcasters. Indeed the real question to ask is whether there was any appreciable difference in content on TVNZ before the charter as compared with after the charter. The answer is that there was not. TVNZ’s charter was first reviewed in 2007-08 and was considered by a select committee but legislative change did not result because this Government’s preference was to remove the charter altogether. 
This Government is committed to public broadcasting. We have shown our support by making the funding that was formerly ring-fenced for TVNZ’s charter commitments available as contestable funding through New Zealand On Air. The Platinum Television Fund allocates $15.1 million per annum for projects to screen on any of New Zealand’s six free-to-air national broadcasters with preference given to projects scheduled for prime-time viewing. Our view is that no one broadcaster or production company has a monopoly on the best ideas and the Platinum Television Fund gives the best possible projects the chance to make it on to our screens. 
The existing Act does not recognise TVNZ as a multimedia company. Times have changed and clause 4 of the bill therefore amends the purpose clause of the Act accordingly. TVNZ’s online services are the sorts of services that will now be recognised and encouraged in the legislation. Clause 4 also reflects the new general statement of functions to replace the charter and these are outlined in what will be a new section 12 of the Act as substituted by clause 6. 
With the passing of this legislation TVNZ’s functions will be to be a successful national television and digital media company; to provide high-quality content that is relevant to and enjoyed and valued by New Zealand audiences; to provide both New Zealand and international content and reflect Maori perspectives; and to include the provision of free-to-air channels available to audiences throughout New Zealand. This is a clear and succinct statement of TVNZ’s functions. TVNZ will continue to provide broadcasting services to all New Zealanders and the public will continue to have access to local content on TVNZ including material with a Maori perspective. However TVNZ will now have the flexibility it needs in order to effectively pursue commercial objectives and to continue its transition from a traditional broadcaster to a multi-platform digital media company with diverse income streams and services. 
TVNZ’s online presence continues to grow. Its website—tvnz.co.nz—receives 1.4 million unique hits per month. The TVNZ ondemand service has been enthusiastically received attracting 300000 unique browsers per month and it is now returning a profit. In October last year TVNZ launched its first online-only interactive drama  
Reservoir Hill 
 which was a massive hit with the targeted audience. This online growth has not been at the expense of traditional television viewing and indeed television audiences reached an all-time high in 2009. 
If TVNZ is to be recognised as a digital media company other sections of the principal Act need to reflect this. Under section 28 of that Act shareholding Ministers cannot give direction on programme content to TVNZ or its subsidiaries. An amendment is required to recognise that TVNZ now provides content on several media platforms that may not meet the definition of “programme”. Clause 9 amends section 28 to include content among the matters for which editorial independence is preserved. 
Television New Zealand’s archive is a unique and valuable record of New Zealand’s historical social and cultural life and it is an important part of our screen heritage. As such it is in the public interest that publicly funded programmes be available for further viewing. Currently a significant number of programmes are effectively locked up in the TVNZ archive because they are unable to be screened until a number of rights clearance issues are resolved. Prior to the establishment of New Zealand On Air in 1989 programmes were often produced for or by the Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand with individual contracts for each actor writer director composer or other contracted contributor associated with every episode of every programme. The contracts reflected a single channel era and required every rights-holder to be contacted before rescreening and a payment to be negotiated with that person. That means that everyone loses out. The public is deprived of the opportunity to view publicly funded material and those who have contributed creatively to the programmes have no chance to earn recognition or royalties from further screening of those programmes. 
Under this bill reuse of these programmes will ensures maximum value from the initial public investment and deliver attribution and a modest financial reward to rights-holders. The reuse of the works allowed in the amendment will be confined to TVNZ’s free-to-air delivery platforms at no cost to the viewer and with no direct commercial gain to TVNZ. Clause 10 inserts a new Part 4A “TVNZ archived works” into the principal Act to make provision for the rescreening of television programmes produced before the establishment of New Zealand On Air back in 1989 although still recognising the rights of persons with an interest in the archived work. New section 29C will enable TVNZ to screen an archived work multiple times free of charge on its television channels on TVNZ ondemand and on any other delivery platform with which TVNZ may enter into an agreement for the supply of content such as New Zealand On Screen. 
New section 29G requires TVNZ to establish a TVNZ Archived Works Fund which will be used to make payment to individuals who register their interest in an archived work that is to be screened. The processes for registration assessment of applications and the review process are outlined in new sections 29I through to 29P. The details about where the scheme will be administered have yet to be finalised. In brief TVNZ will give notice of its intention to screen an archived work through public notices on its delivery platforms in major metropolitan newspapers and in any relevant industry or guild publication. The notice will advise when a particular archived work is to be screened. People who believe they have contractual rights in an archived work will be able to register their interest. These applications will be assessed according to the person’s role in production and compensatory payment will be made on the basis of the assessment. 
Before this scheme can be introduced the Copyright Act 1994 also requires amendment to exclude the communication of an archived work as defined in this bill from being an infringement of that Act. Clauses 13 and 14 of the bill make those amendments to the Copyright Act. 
This legislation marks a new era for TVNZ. In a converging media environment TVNZ needs to have a flexible and realistic set of statutory functions to position it as a modern competitive broadcaster. The TVNZ archived works scheme will ensure that rights-holders will gain benefit from their work the public will no longer be denied the opportunity to view works that are part of New Zealand’s cultural and broadcasting heritage and further value will be gained from the public funding invested in the programmes. 
At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. I commend this bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and make it clear that the Labour Party will oppose the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. This might be called the “Get the Coromandel off the Front Page Bill”. The bill was tabled last year. It was promised before Christmas. It comes now as a directionless bill from a directionless Minister in a Government whose only direction in broadcasting seems to be towards Sky. This bill formalises the gutting of the already gutted Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter effected from the middle of last year. At that time the Minister of Broadcasting was also introducing a Radio New Zealand charter bill which pledged that there would be no sponsorship. Now he is telling the Radio New Zealand board to get out of its mindset and to consider its options including sponsorship. It is little wonder that thousands of New Zealanders are saying to the Minister “Hands off Radio New Zealand.” 
When the Minister launched the Platinum Television Fund last year he said it would be open to all broadcasters as a fund for premium content. Now the Minister is telling the TVNZ board to look at the Platinum Television Fund as a source of money to keep a public broadcasting option going for TVNZ. This bill closes down that public broadcasting option. If the Minister is successful in that ploy the money from the Platinum Television Fund will not go into programmes; it will go into keeping on a shoestring budget a public service broadcasting option on TVNZ 7 alone. I think we can forget about TVNZ 6 continuing. We have to say private television production companies that are already feeling the squeeze have every reason to ask what on earth is going on. What has happened in the last few months? The recession has eased but the Government has taken an even harder view of public service broadcasting. 
This bill is about a lack of coherence from the Government. On the one hand it says in the bill’s preamble it is in the public’s interest to see New Zealand’s screen heritage. Yet at the same time TVNZ is providing to Sky from the beginning of May a channel available only to people who purchase the Sky option. I ask where the public service broadcasting option is in that. Where is the Government’s coherence? How is the public interest being served by that? Another example of this Minister’s inconsistency and incoherence was the recent instruction to the TVNZ board about the funding of TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7. He told the board that there is no further funding for those channels when the money runs out at the end of next year because the Minister of Finance has told him that there is no money for that. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Well what would you do Burnsy? What would your Government do? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well the Government should be honest about that and not dress it up as a bill. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: No tell the truth. What would you do? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I ask that Minister what he would do about it. He is the Minister and he can do better than this. This bill fails to spell out in any way any requirements for TVNZ to screen any New Zealand content. 
Let us look at the bill and some of the details included in it. Let us look at new sections 4(a) and 4(b) inserted by clause 4 in Part 1. We see the purpose of the legislation is to “(a) provide for the functions of TVNZ the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business; and (b) ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance”. What do those clauses replace? They replace the Television New Zealand charter which actually said TVNZ had some other obligations as the State broadcaster. It was asked to feature programming across all genres that informed entertained and educated New Zealand audiences. In fulfilment of its objectives TVNZ was required to feature New Zealand films drama comedy and documentary programmes. What does this bill spell out about the content that must be delivered? It says this: TVNZ must encompass both New Zealand and international content. It puts absolutely no requirement on TVNZ. So under this legislation we will see a further grinding back of the content that TVNZ provides. That is what it will do. 
I ask the Minister what the point was of telling the Platinum Television Fund that it should become the funder of high-end content just 9 months ago when it was launched when now he is saying to TVNZ that the Platinum Television Fund should become perhaps the funding source for its ongoing provision of TVNZ 7. With that goes the end of the commitment to quality programming. This bill puts no specific obligations on TVNZ to provide any New Zealand content at all. One has to contrast that with the Television New Zealand charter which whatever its faults might have been at least specified that TVNZ as the State broadcaster had some requirements put upon it. 
New Zealand On Air is left as an organisation— 
Melissa Lee 
: Which New Zealand programme can you name that was funded by the charter? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: You can talk about grants; I am talking about New Zealand On Air now. I am talking about New Zealand On Air. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is bringing the Chair into the debate on a few occasions. You cannot use the word “you”. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I will talk about New Zealand On Air an issue that Melissa Lee knows something about. She has been a recipient of the largesse of New Zealand On Air. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Big time. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Big time. That organisation has provided plenty of carrots but no stick—plenty of carrots but no stick. Last week probably in anticipation of this bill it announced $9.3 million of funding for high-end programmes: good programmes stuff that New Zealanders will want to watch and stuff that will make New Zealanders proud to be New Zealanders. But I suspect that New Zealand On Air is getting in ahead of this announcement because the Minister is trying to get his hands on the fund he launched only 9 months ago for content. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Tell the truth Burnsy. You know that’s not true. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I say the Minister should tell TV3 that he wants TVNZ to receive most of the money from the Platinum Television Fund. I ask him what has happened in 9 months. Why has he been unable to get some resources for his portfolio—what has happened? 
The Minister is also at the same time demanding that TVNZ maximise its dividend stream to him. I ask him what that is causing. TVNZ is now in the process of a second round of job cuts. Ninety jobs were lost last year—90 jobs gone. How many job losses will we see announced in the coming weeks? Already we have been told that $5 million has been taken from TVNZ’s budget. That $5 million is going so where is the Minister’s commitment to TVNZ and its future? Where is the Minister’s commitment? It is just not there. This bill is an indication of that very very clearly. It fails on a number of fronts in terms of its delivery to New Zealanders and in terms of content. We see the Minister scrambling around and trying to instruct TVNZ to fund the two existing channels TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 out of a dwindling return that TVNZ is managing to deliver at the moment. We know that TVNZ is being unrealistically told to crank out the maximum possible dividends over the next 5 years. We see a second round of job cuts looming. 
All that the Minister can do is to introduce a long-awaited bill that does absolutely nothing for public service broadcasting whatsoever. He has also suggested that the two channels TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 be funded from the Platinum Television Fund and we know that it will not deliver that funding. The Minister has told the chair of TVNZ— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You’ve got to tell the truth. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to the member to my right Jonathan Coleman that the phrase “tell the truth” is deemed under Speaker’s ruling 43/1 to be unparliamentary. The member has used that phrase a number of times. I ask him to desist from doing that. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not going to lose my cool and storm out of the Chamber like members opposite have done to relieve some time when the pressure told on them. 
This bill confirms the Government’s view of broadcasting. The Government sees TVNZ as nothing more than a cash cow—nothing more than a cash cow. The obligations enshrined in the charter in terms of trying to deliver some sense of public service broadcasting objectives are absolutely obliterated by this bill. They are absolutely obliterated. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You’re 30 years out of date Brendon. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: What is wrong with State service broadcasting? What is wrong with public service broadcasting? The Minister is telling TVNZ that he wants it to deliver public service broadcasting objectives because belatedly he has woken up to the fact that actually New Zealanders do value those things. They do value those things and they have shown that very very clearly in the response to his instructions to the board of Radio New Zealand in the last few weeks—very very clearly. By the thousands and thousands they have said very clearly to the Minister they do not like his instructions to Radio New Zealand. I suspect that they will not like what he is saying to the TVNZ board either. 
The Minister’s instructions are really part of the whole strategy of lining TVNZ up for sale by stripping it of any requirement to be anything other than like any other broadcaster out there in the commercial space. That makes it very easy for the Government to say TVNZ is no different from any other broadcaster so why should the Government keep it in public ownership? That is the strategy. It is very naked and the Minister’s language about that has been quite explicit. He has said to the TVNZ board that it should let Television One and TV2 be “nakedly commercial”. I think that was the phrase that he used. He said we should let them be “nakedly commercial”. The Government is to fund a tiny shoestring operation at the back end to try to deliver a tiny little sense of a public service obligation and then it will sell TVNZ. It will simply have a shoestring operation funded out of the Platinum Television Fund and anything else that TVNZ may be able to cobble together after it has paid its dividend stream to the Government. That is the Government’s strategy. That is what this bill is about. 
I also want to comment about the fact that the Minister has included in this bill references to New Zealand content derived before 1989. The bill proposes that TVNZ pay $300 per half-hour to broadcast such content—$300 for half an hour of programme content. What a derisory sum that is. What an insult that is to New Zealanders. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. Unlike the previous speaker I will be speaking to the bill and the specific clauses within it. As the Minister of Broadcasting has already noted earlier this evening the bill amends the Television New Zealand Act 2003. It does three things. Firstly it replaces the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter with more generic statutory requirements; secondly it amends the prohibition on ministerial direction to TVNZ to cover the multiple platforms including websites that TVNZ currently operates on; and thirdly it enables the screening of pre-1989 TVNZ archived works which previous speakers have referred to. 
The Government aims to replace the TVNZ charter with a brief and less prescriptive statement of functions which enables TVNZ to determine its own priorities against a general set of functions. The Minister has already noted that it specifies that TVNZ is to provide content for a range of media. It does so now and it will continue to do so into the future. The other purpose of the bill is to allow for the rescreening of television programmes produced before the establishment of the Broadcasting Commission or New Zealand On Air in 1989. These works which are held in the archive are not currently able to be shown in their entirety because with the passage of time some rights-holders cannot be located or tracked down. It is in the public interest that these programmes be seen again as part of New Zealand’s screen heritage. 
Clause 6 repeals section 12 of the Act and substitutes new section 12 which states in subsection (1): “The functions of TVNZ are to be a successful national television and digital media company providing a range of content and services on a choice of delivery platforms and”—I emphasise this—“maintaining its commercial performance.” In carrying out these functions TVNZ of course must provide high-quality content that is relevant to and enjoyed by all New Zealanders. It should also encompass both New Zealand and international content and reflect our unique Maori heritage and history. So TVNZ’s services must include the provision of channels that are free of charge and available to audiences across this nation. 
In terms of archived works the bill sets out a mechanism and the circumstances in which TVNZ may screen pre-1989 archived works without having to negotiate individually with those who were interested in these works. It provides for TVNZ to grant the Maori Television Service the right to screen such archived works and for TVNZ to enter into negotiations with New Zealand On Air and screen archived works. Works screened under this section of course must be screened free of charge. If an archived work is screened in a way other than free of charge TVNZ would be obliged to provide for the normal legal rights and privileges of the interested persons which we referred to. 
The bill provides for the establishment of a TVNZ Archived Works Fund for the purpose of making payment to those who register their interest in archived works that are to be later screened. As the Minister has already noted this is about honouring our election promise to replace the current TVNZ charter with a less prescriptive list of functions and to leave TVNZ free to determine its own priorities within its desired goals and outcomes. 
TVNZ and its predecessor effectively operated as a publicly owned broadcaster without a charter. It has largely fulfilled this public broadcasting function through access to New Zealand On Air funding and Mr Burns has kindly reminded us of that. But the problem with the charter money was that often it ended up funding programmes and services for which it was not intended. There is no doubt that it ended up subsidising other types of commercial operations. 
The repeal of the charter frees TVNZ from an unworkable dual mandate and leaves it to set high-level statutory functions in order for it to be a competitive multimedia company. With this new high-level function and its own strategic direction it will retain its vital role as a willing broadcaster of local content which is contrary to Mr Burns’ view of course. This role is essential to the contestable funding model that in order to succeed needs broadcasters who are willing to commission and screen New Zealand content. 
The previous speaker referred to the Platinum Television Fund. We as a Government have shown our support for the contestable model by making the funding formerly ring-fenced for TVNZ’s charter commitments available as a contestable fund through New Zealand On Air of course. This amount is not insignificant at $15.1 million per year. It is for projects to screen on any of New Zealand’s six free-to-air national broadcasters with preference for prime-time viewing programmes. 
I note in case Mr Burns has forgotten that successful applications in the first funding round included funding for historical documentaries to be screened on Television One and for  
Q+A 
 which no doubt Mr Burns watches religiously every Sunday morning. Subsequently funding has been approved for two dramas a documentary and a special-interest programme to be broadcast across a number of channels including our very own Television One. 
At this point I should note that the charter also contains clauses relating to Maori audiences and content. It states that TVNZ will in its programming enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Maori language and culture and it should feature programmes that serve the interests and information needs of Maori audiences including programmes promoting Maori language history culture and current events. The bill expects TVNZ to provide content reflecting these unique Maori perspectives. 
As the Minister has already pointed out this bill is to be commended to the House and I look forward to discussing its specific clauses at the Commerce Committee. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to strenuously oppose the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 2009. Labour is opposed. This country needs a strong modern public media service. Instead we are getting a weak regressive media that has no coherence that is about propping up monopolies and that pays lip-service to New Zealand content. This Government has no commitment to public media or to public broadcasting. This bill is about erosion and it is a disgrace. It mirrors the gutting that is happening to Radio New Zealand and it reveals the true agenda of this Government which is to erode public broadcasting services both television and radio. Public broadcasting is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It reflects us back to ourselves. It enables robust quality public debate that is unencumbered by the imperative of just the ratings dollar and it enables a level of scrutiny and high standards in the context of news delivery that only a true independent public broadcasting service can deliver. 
Tonight I am talking about erosion and confusion and I want to focus on two things. The first is the replacement of the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter. Here it is. There are 24 points being replaced by three. That is a shame; it really is. I want to read a few of those 24 points and what they signify. They say that TVNZ will “feature programming across all genres that informs entertains and educates New Zealand audiences.” and it will “strive always to set and maintain the highest standards of programme quality and editorial integrity.” It should “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity; … ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice; … play a leading role in New Zealand television by setting standards of programme quality and encouraging creative risk-taking and experiment. … play a leading role in New Zealand television by complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practise in particular any code with provisions on violence;” and “support and promote the talents and creative resources of New Zealanders and of the independent New Zealand film and television industry”. 
What is it being replaced with? That it should “provide for the functions of TVNZ the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business;” and “ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial”—commercial!—“performance;” and that it establish “a process that will enable TVNZ to screen in specified circumstances programmes made before 27 May 1989 and held in the TVNZ Archive;”. 
Brendon Burns 
: That’s it. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: And that is it. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Well what’s wrong with that? What difference did the charter make to what we see on TV? That’s the real point. If you can answer that you’re getting somewhere. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: The Minister of Broadcasting talks about aspiration. Aspiration for what I ask. It is small and quite pathetic. 
The second point I will talk about tonight is enabling the screening of TVNZ’s archived works. I think there is a big question mark over what that means and this goes to confusion. I do not think that the Minister has worked out what he means in relation to this. The question is whether this work will be available to all New Zealanders via free to air. There is a failure to spell out any requirements for Television New Zealand to screen New Zealand content. I think that a lot of questions need to be answered on that issue. 
I want to talk about the future and as I said at the beginning the importance of having what Labour thinks is a strong modern public media service. I will refer to a couple of items that I think clearly go to this matter. The first one is a bit sad but it is from a conference that was held in August 2007 in Wellington entitled “New broadcasting futures: Out of the box”. This was where the future of our broadcasting system in this country was being discussed and a lot of things were out on the table. I will read to members what that conference was about. “Just what will a fast-changing digital landscape mean for audiences content creators broadcasters platform providers and policy makers? If we peer into a crystal ball is there a broadcasting-led but happily converged future giving boundless content with viewers increasingly in control of their own digital communities? Or is this the sad end of free-to-air broadcasting as we know it with audiences splintered across multiple platforms and Kiwi voices drowned in a sea of global content? What do we need to do to get it where we want to be?” Unfortunately I think we are being left with the latter. 
The second item I will read to members is from an article that was produced by an Australian online organisation called Inside Story. It is entitled “Public broadcasting looks for a future. The pay TV industry has opened up a new front in its battle with free-to-air”. It was written by Margaret Simons and published in January 2009. It was written in response to the review of public broadcasting in Australia. She wrote: “changes of ‘lifestyle and technology’ are the very reason why public input is more than ever necessary. They constitute the main challenge to public broadcasting and also the main opportunities … The public broadcasters are being challenged to redefine their purposes and their claims on the taxpayer’s purse. The challenge is coming not from government not from the cultural warriors of the right (or not only from them) but from pay television … Channels Nine Seven and Ten are almost irrelevant in this. The pay television sector understands that the commercial free-to-air business model is broken. Commercial free-to-air television cannot afford to compete with pay television in providing multiple channels of specialised content to niche audiences. To do so would fragment the audience and remove the motivation for mass market advertisers to spend their bucks on television commercials. Public broadcasters are a different matter. They are potentially the main competition for pay television. The ABC doesn’t have to worry about advertising. For Auntie there is nothing but opportunity in the capacity to provide more and more choice. She already has two digital television channels and plans several more—a dedicated children’s channel a public affairs channel an education channel and a ‘best of overseas’ channel. SBS also has multiple channels and plans more. So in the new battle between pay television and free to air television the ABC is in the front line. This is why it is the ABC not the commercial channels that has taken the lead role in the Freeview organisation which is leading the free-to-air sector in its marketing efforts. Channels Nine and Seven have not even announced what they plan to put on their new multi-channels. In fact they give the impression of wanting the whole multichannel thing to go away. This battle between public and pay is not only about government money but also about spectrum and government favour.” 
The only thing that I can say is sensible about this bill is that it states that Television New Zealand is both a TV and a digital media business. I am all for a multi-platform digital media company; that is convergence. But there is no mention of a public broadcasting service. The bill before us tonight is driven purely by commercial imperatives and we oppose it. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will certainly not be supporting the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill which will strip Television New Zealand (TVNZ) of any public service functions and of any public service obligations or responsibilities and will turn it into a nakedly commercial broadcaster—in the Minister of Broadcasting’s words—indistinguishable from any other commercial broadcaster in New Zealand. It is sad to sit here and watch one of the last remaining public service broadcasters disappear because that is what this bill will bring about. It is particularly sad when we consider the media landscape in New Zealand. 
New Zealand has one of the most deregulated broadcasting environments in the world. We have no laws limiting cross-media ownership. We have no regulations restricting the amount of foreign ownership of the media as a result of which only a handful of media outlets in New Zealand are not foreign-owned. They are the  
Otago Daily Times 
 a couple of papers on the West Coast Radio New Zealand TVNZ and Maori Television. We are one of the only countries in the world that has no local content quotas and as a result we have the lowest amount of local programming on television of any OECD country. Most of Europe has about 90 percent local content. Australia has one of the lowest rates with only 55 percent mandatory local content. As for New Zealand on Television One we have 10 to 20 percent local content and there is a rapidly diminishing percentage of local content on TV2. Once this bill goes through we will be the only country in the OECD that does not have a public service television broadcaster and soon no doubt we will be the first country in the world to sell our public service television broadcaster. Obviously that is the underlying hidden agenda here—to ready TVNZ for sale. What is the point otherwise in having a publicly owned broadcaster that has no public service functions or responsibilities whatsoever? As others have pointed out the bill strips TVNZ of its charter its public broadcasting responsibilities and any pretence of having any. 
The Green Party is the first to admit that the previous dual mandate of TVNZ was not a great success but at least the charter spelt out explicitly and unequivocally that TVNZ was expected to be a public service broadcaster to serve the public interest and to have high-quality news and current affairs programmes and it set out a list of programming that it was expected to have such as drama children’s programming and so forth. All of this has gone and TNVZ is simply to exist to be nakedly commercial and focused solely on pursuing ratings and advertising revenue. Essentially it will exist to sell audiences to advertisers. Once the bill goes through Parliament as it undoubtedly will TVNZ will exist for the sole purpose of returning a profit and a 9 percent dividend to its shareholder the Government. The board already has a mandate of returning a dividend at all costs and it is looking at ways of lifting its profits by $30 million to $40 million a year which is no small task when one considers that there was a 90 percent drop in profits last year and a $17 million fall in advertising revenue. 
But with no charter in place and absolutely no requirements to screen any particular programmes TVNZ will be able to do whatever it wishes to try to lift its profits by $30 million to $40 million. It will have as the Minister said complete flexibility to do whatever it wants and no requirement to screen local programmes documentaries dramas children’s programmes or minority-interest programmes. Inevitably therefore we will see even fewer New Zealand programmes less and less news and current affairs and we probably will not see any documentaries because those programmes are more expensive to produce. It is more expensive to produce New Zealand programmes than it is to import cheap packaged action programmes and so forth from overseas. So we will see less and less current affairs and news less and less New Zealand content and this is happening already. 
Last year TVNZ slashed its budget by $25 million made 90 staff redundant and cut 100 hours of local programming. This year around June I am told it is talking of making a further 75 staff redundant. It is making savage cuts to news and current affairs by cutting 12.5 percent from the $40 million news budget. It is even talking about reducing TVNZ news broadcasts to half an hour downgrading the Wellington and Christchurch news offices and centralising control in Auckland. Soon we will have the Auckland news not the New Zealand news. 
Obviously this is an idiotic strategy because 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. is considered the flagship news hour when channels compete for audience share. Slashing the news budget as is being proposed will inevitably reduce the quality of news and therefore people will migrate to other channels such as TV3. TVNZ will lose audience share and therefore advertising and therefore revenue. It is an idiotic strategy. But even leaving that aside the reduction in news and current affairs and in New Zealand programming is an inevitable consequence of stripping TVNZ of its public service charter. 
The Government is stating clearly that TVNZ should be solely focused on naked commercialism. So what we are really seeing is a return to the commercial excesses of the 1990s. This is just a rerun of the 1990s with TVNZ solely focused on maximising returns and dividends and being prepared for sale. It is finishing the unfinished business. In the 1990s the intention was to sell TVNZ but it did not succeed then so clearly the Government is out to finish that unfinished agenda. However I must admit there is a problem and the Minister has spoken about this issue in an interview. He said that the problem is there are unlikely to be any buyers out there. The value of TVNZ has dropped from $330 million to $184 million and he lamented that if one looks at the equity no one would want to buy it. 
The question that media commentators are asking is that other than stripping TVNZ of its charter and its charter funding and starving Radio New Zealand of its funding what the Government’s broadcasting strategy is. The media commentator John Drinnan said that after barely a year in the job Mr Coleman has “created such a muddle”—I repeat such a muddle—“that it is impossible to discern the direction of the Key Government’s broadcasting policy if indeed it has one.” 
The closest thing I found to the Minister discussing his strategy was when he said in an interview that now that Television One and TV2 were nakedly commercial the plan was that people would be able to turn to TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 the new public service channels to get what he said most people would describe as “quality broadcasting content”. If they then flick to Television One and TV2 they would get whatever is served up. 
TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7 are basically not public service broadcasting channels with high-quality programming; they are niche channels. TVNZ 6 basically delivers news update repeats on Television One and a handful of local shows. It is basically just reruns reruns and reruns of programmes. We cannot call that quality broadcasting. By 2012 it will have no more money. The Minister has said that its funding runs out then. There will be no more money. The Government will expect TVNZ to fund it and TVNZ has made it plain that it will not be funding it. So the truth is that there is no broadcasting strategy. The Government does not believe in public service broadcasting. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora ano tatau katoa. I te tuatahi me penei rawa te korero kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori i etahi o nga korero o tera mema o te Ropu Kakariki i a ia e korero ana he aha kei te putake o tenei pire? Ko ta matau he tautoko ake i te ki mai ko te putea te mea nui kaua ko nga hua o te mahi. Ko ta te Pati Maori ko te ki ake e hia ke nei nga painga o tetahi pepa penei i te whainga matua ara te tutohinga papaho. E hia ke nei nga painga o tera momo pepa. I nga tau kua hipa ara noa atu te taumata korero hei whainga ma Te Reo Tataki. I ki mai te tutohinga i nga tau kua hipa “TVNZ shall: … ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice; 
”.  
Kei reira tonu te korero. Ko te pai o tera korero ko tana whakarite i nga taumata paoho a ko te kite ano hoki mena i ekengia e Te Reo Tataki ona ake taumata. I ki mai tetahi porangi ko  
Police Ten 7  
me te  
Game of Two Halves  
etahi hotaka hei whakatinana i te korero i roto i tera tutohinga. Katahi te korero rorirori ko tera. Ko ta Te Reo Tataki he hunuku i a  
Waka Huia 
 ki nga haora o te ruru he whakaiti ranei i nga haora o nga mea penei i a  
Marae 
. Ahakoa pehea ko te mea pai o te tutohinga he taumata kei reira he whakarite i era momo taumata kia ahei ai tetahi ki te whakamatautau i a Te Reo Tataki kia kitea mai ai mena i eke a ia ki ona ake korero ki ona ake taumata. Ki a matau koinei te pai o te tutohinga. 
Me pehea hoki inaianei mena ka whakakorengia tenei ahuatanga. Me pehea hoki mena kaore a Te Reo Tataki e hiahia paoho paku ahuatanga o te ao Maori te reo Maori te whakanui ranei i nga mahi e mahia nei e ratau inaia tonu nei. Me ki ko wai te pirihimana? Ko au ko Parekura Horomia ko te Whare Paremata? Ko wai hoki? Ko wai te pirihimana hei whakamatautau hei tohutohu ranei i Te Reo Tataki? 
Kei te patai au i tenei i te mea ki ta Peter Thompson o te Whare Takiura o Unitec nui ake nga hotaka taketake nei o Aotearoa muri mai i te whakatinanatanga o tenei mea te tutohinga. I ki mai ia na te tutohinga ka kite tatau i ta Willie Jackson  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson  
te tangihanga o Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu te tikanga whakamaumaharatanga i te Unknown Soldier tae atu ki te tangihanga mo Ta Edmund Hillary. Na te aha i pera ai? Na te tautohe. Mena ka noho kore tutohinga ko ta matau e ki nei he moni te take nui. 
Ko tetahi mea ohorere ki a au ko te whakaaetanga kia tukurua kia tukutoru ranei nga hotaka tawhito. Kia mohio mai e te Whare i te Ratapu kua hipa e hia ke nei nga mea i waea atu ki tetahi o to matau ropu o te Pati Maori ki te patai mena kua taka ano ia ki te raruraru. Na te aha i pera ai? Na te mea i paoho a  
Marae 
 i tetahi uiui tetahi hotaka no te tau kua hipa. Ka kite mai nga tangata i runga i te pouaka whakaata ka pohehe e kua raruraru ano tera Maori i roto i te Pati Maori. Engari ehara. 
No reira ko te ahua nei ka taea e Te Reo Tataki te paoho nga hotaka tawhito i tenei wa tonu nei. No reira he aha te take nui o tera? Kei a matau etahi awangawanga mo te pire nei me te mau tonu ki te whakaaro kia noho a Te Reo Tataki me te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa ki roto i nga ringaringa o te motu penei i ta Sue Kedgley i korero nei me noho ki roto i nga ringaringa o Aotearoa whanui tonu. Engari ko te mea nui ki a matau ko tenei me pehea e taea ai te tiaki tetahi wahanga Maori ko nga tumanako Maori ko nga mea e whakanui nei i to tatau noho a-Aotearoa nei ki te kore e whakairi i tetahi tutohinga hei kupu arahi hei kupu tohutohu hei kupu arataki i te ahuatanga o Te Reo Tataki. 
Heoi ano ahakoa enei awangawanga enei manukanuka ka tukuna tenei pire ki te komiti whaiti kia taea ai te wananga i te pire nei kia taea ai e te hapori e te motu pea te wananga i tenei o nga kaupapa a ka mutu ma ratau ano matau e arahi hei muri ake nei. Ae he huarahi kua whakatakotohia ko ta matau ko te ki atu kei reira tonu etahi paku awangawanga. Heoi ano i tona mutunga mai taria te wa kia rongo i nga korero o te motu. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all again. Firstly let me say that the Maori Party endorses some of the comments made by that member for the Green Party during her address when she asked what was this bill’s rationale. We support the response that the main focus is on money and not the benefits from programming. We the Maori Party say that there are many advantages in having a primary aims - type document like a broadcasting charter—yes very many advantages. Television New Zealand in past years was set many standards to meet. The original charter set the benchmark high. It stated that “TVNZ shall:… ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice;”.  
The statement is still there. The good thing about it is that it sets broadcasting standards and enables us to assess whether Television New Zealand is meeting its own standards. Some mindless person suggested that  
Police Ten 7 
 and  
Game of Two Halves 
 were akin to the presence of a significant Maori voice but the nation thought otherwise. That was sheer nonsense. What a load of rubbish! Television New Zealand then shifted  
Waka Huia 
 into the depth of night to the hour of the morepork or reduced the hours of a programme like  
Marae 
. Nevertheless the good thing about a charter is that it sets a standard; it determines the types of standards so one can assess whether Television New Zealand is achieving its standards and how it said it would do it. That is what we like about having a charter.  
What would happen now should a charter be abolished? What will happen should Television New Zealand decide that it no longer wants to broadcast programmes that reflect anything to do with Maoridom and the language or increase the content of what it is doing right now? Who will oversee all that? Will I do that? Will the Hon Parekura Horomia do it? Will it be Parliament? Who will indeed? Who will oversee assess or advise Television New Zealand? 
I am asking this because Peter Thompson from Unitec Institute of Technology has said that the level of local content increased after the introduction of the charter to the extent that there is more local content screened on Television New Zealand channels. He said that because of the charter we began to see programmes like Willie Jackson’s  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
 the funeral of Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu the memorial ceremony for the Unknown Soldier and Sir Edmund Hillary’s funeral. What brought that about? Debate did it. Should there not be a charter it will mean to us that money has become the primary consideration.  
The thing that startles me is the provision to screen archived programmes and allowing them to be repeated two or three times. I want the House to know that last Sunday many people rang a member of our Maori Party to ask whether he was about to get into trouble again. What caused that? A repeat programme an inquiry from last year was screened on Marae. People saw it on television and mistakenly assumed that the member of the Maori Party was in trouble again. But he was not at all.  
So it seems that Television New Zealand will be able to continue what it is doing right now. What is the big thing about that? We have some fairly strong misgivings about this bill. We strongly believe that Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand should remain in public ownership. Sue Kedgley advocates a similar view. But the greatest thing for us is to ensure that Maori perspectives and aspirations as well as those of all the people of New Zealand are not enshrined in a programming strategy to lead direct and guide Television New Zealand.  
However despite these misgivings and concerns we support this bill going to the select committee so that we can hear the views of the people. We will be guided by them afterwards. Yes there is a process in place and we say to them that while some minor areas remain a concern we look forward to the time when we can hear their thoughts. Thank you all 
.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. We continue to live in times of unprecedented technological development and the speed of change is accelerating. This bill enables Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to keep abreast of that change by replacing the Television New Zealand charter with a briefer less prescriptive statement of functions enabling TVNZ to freely determine its own priorities against more general sets of functions. Added to this the economic downturn which has affected the advertising revenue of TVNZ substantially has highlighted the need for TVNZ to implement this strategy in an accelerated manner. 
This amendment bill will enable TVNZ to develop its strategy of moving forward as our publicly owned broadcaster. I quote from its 2010 statement of intent which was released in May 2009: “This strategy was about moving TVNZ from being a traditional advertising driven analogue broadcaster to being a multi-platform television and digital media company with diversified revenue streams.” 
We live in times when change is about us all the time regarding the digital media world in which we live. TVNZ needs to keep up that change in order for it to remain competitive but competition is not a dreadful thing. We heard discussions tonight about naked commercialism. Competition has the positive effect of bringing better quality at a better price. It becomes efficient in all sorts of different ways. The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill also specifies that TVNZ provide content through a range of media in addition to the conventional television channels so this bill is keeping step with the statement of intent. 
One thing that was touched on by the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell was the archived works that this bill will unlock. The other purpose of this bill is to allow for the rescreening of television programmes produced before the establishment of the Broadcasting Commission—on or before 27 May 1989. These works which are held in the TVNZ archives are not currently able to be shown in their entirety because with the passage of time some rights-holders cannot be found. It is in the public interest that they be seen again as they are all part of New Zealand’s screen heritage. The Government has had to strike a balance between the public good of allowing these works to be reshown and acknowledging the rights of contract holders. The regime does not allow individuals involved in the making of programmes to object to their rescreening or to individually negotiate payment for reuse of content. As a practical matter it is not feasible or worthwhile for TVNZ to track down every such individual to seek clearance and negotiate a fee for shows made in some cases more than 30 years ago. Instead the regime introduced by the bill involves general notification and some modest but equitable payment for those who respond. 
The bill limits use of the content to free-to-air use—that is TVNZ cannot charge people to view the content. TVNZ may screen pre-1989 archived works without having to negotiate with each individual. It provides for TVNZ to grant to the Maori Television Service the right to screen archived works and for TVNZ to enter into arrangements with New Zealand On Screen to screen archived works. Works screened under this section must be screened free of charge. If an archived work is to be screened other than free of charge TVNZ would be obliged to provide for the normal legal rights and privileges if any to these interested persons. The bill provides for the establishment of the TVNZ Archived Works Fund for the purpose of making payment to those who register their interest in an archived work that is to be screened. 
The charter contains clauses relating to Maori audiences and content. It states that TVNZ will in its programming enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Maori language and culture and feature programmes that serve the interests and informational needs of Maori audiences including programmes promoting the Maori language and programmes addressing Maori history culture and current issues. The bill expects TVNZ to provide content reflecting Maori perspectives with or without a charter. TVNZ has had a longstanding commitment to Maori programming. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill; I have done some work on this area in the past as the previous Minister of Broadcasting. I did not think I would be speaking tonight; I thought my time would come at some stage in the future. I thought we would hear from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas on this matter as he is the sole ACT member in the Chamber and has had a lot of interest in Television New Zealand in the past. I thought that he would want to discuss why he is so keen on voting for a bill to keep Television New Zealand in State control because generally he takes quite the opposite approach to Television New Zealand. Generally he pushes the National Party to privatise. Although my colleagues see this bill as a step towards privatisation I am sure it does not go far enough for Sir Roger. I am very very surprised that he is not prepared to stand up in this House vent his views and say what he thinks. As Jonathan Hunt would say 10 to 10 at night is peak listening time and it would be an opportunity for him to get his views across. 
There are some points in this legislation on which there is agreement. I think we need a method of freeing up the archive material. I am not sure that we have quite got it right. It might be a sign of my age but I think that archive rights-holders from the 1980s still have a significant interest in the material that they produced. We need a mechanism for ensuring that their rights can be identified and delivered to them and that there can be some discussion especially where people have significant rights in this material. There is a treasure trove of material within the archives and it would be good to get it out and make it available. We are seeing a lot of replaying of some of that older material on NZ on Screen and it is very very good. One might say that although the technology was not nearly as good some of the intellect that went into the programming and some of the movies that are now being made available well outstretch some of the things that are being made today. 
The other point on which there is a lot of agreement—and I am not sure yet that this Minister of Broadcasting has his head around it—is the question about what is happening in the media world generally and the fact that a massive convergence is occurring. Frankly I do not care how the stuff gets to the screen in my living room. I do not mind if it comes via broadband via broadcast or via a Vodafone card although I get slightly unhappy when Darren Hughes appears on my television screen as I always question the colour settings. I am never sure that the colour is right when Mr Hughes appears on the screen. When he and Mr Hipkins are on the screen I generally have to ring up Sky to see whether someone can come and adjust the picture because it just does not look human. 
Seriously convergence is occurring and it is occurring at a very fast pace. Although I have no doubt that the value of Television New Zealand has gone down over recent years I also have no doubt that a significant factor in that is that people are able to get their news through many other broadcast channels. More important fewer and fewer people rely on television for content—for news content or for their entertainment content. Many people now use systems other than broadcast television. Many of us get much of our news and our entertainment by way of our computers and that is the way of the future. I think it is fair to say—and I say this even though I was the Minister for a year—that I do not think that Television New Zealand has done a good job over the last 15 years of staying ahead of that sort of trend. It is an organisation that might be said to be at the higher cost end of the production. It pays very little when it is buying material but if we look at the size of the organisation compared to similar organisations we see that it is very big. I am sure that will cause it some problems going forward. This bill does not really address any of that area at all. 
I come back to the matter of convergence. Many of us are just beginning to get our heads around the way the new media works. A number of the communications companies phone companies and similar organisations are quite a long way ahead of Television New Zealand in their understanding of the possibilities of the new media. It is fair to say that even in this House without going too deeply into Melissa Lee’s personal interests we have someone who has shown that one can set up a television company with not a lot and produce material that is competitive in particular niche markets. I think we will find over a period of time that more and more people will do that and as the shift is made from analog to digital the ability for many more people to do so will occur. I think that will mean that much more variety is available to people; I think a lot of us draw our material internationally. 
All of that has implications for the television organisation that frankly is not much different from the one I started watching television on in 1961 when I lived in Wainuiomata. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Are you still there? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have gone a long way: I have gone 100 yards round the corner. I am not sure that the organisation that we are expecting to be our primary provider of unbiased— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: You were a Khandallah boy. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Wainuiomata in 1961. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I thought you went to Onslow College. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did go to Onslow College but I assure the member that that was well after 1961. He might not have been born in 1961 but I went to secondary school well after that. 
The point I was trying to make is that Television New Zealand will have to be a nimble organisation and I am not sure that anything in this bill helps it to do that. I say to the Minister that as far as his Platinum Fund or whatever it is called is concerned I was the Minister who shifted the charter money to New Zealand On Air. I shifted it. I am a sports nut but pretending that an Olympic Games production is an iconic New Zealand production and deserving of charter funds—it was won in a competitive tender; no one else could have used charter funding for sports production out of Beijing—is wrong. For me that was the straw that broke the camel’s back and caused me to take from Television New Zealand the control of its charter funding. I do not think that it was using it well. I do not think it was using it properly or in New Zealand’s interests. I think though that the Minister has gone too far in his approach to put it out for open tender. It is my opinion that such an approach—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought I had about another 40 seconds to speak. Is that not the case? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: 4 seconds. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Another 40 seconds; thank you Mr Deputy Speaker! The point I was making is that this bill just— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is about 15 seconds before 10 o’clock. I wonder whether this might be an appropriate opportunity for the House to rise and come back tomorrow. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.